













rr.** j 













**** 

>•*. 










40, 







*\-yr?*> * *P 



A DEBATE 



THE STATE OF THE DEAD, 



BETWEEN 



REV. THOMAS P. CONNELLY, A. B., 

AN EVANGELIST OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 






AND 

NATHANIEL FIELD, M. 

FABTOR OP THE CHURCH OF GOD MEETING AT THE CHRISTIAN TABERNACLE IN THB 
CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA. 



:. k :^ 



HELD AT OLD UNION MEETING HOUSE, IN THE VICINITY OF INDIAN- 
APOLIS, IN THE SUMMER OP 1852. 



REPORTED BY J. G. GORDON, ESQ., ATTORNEY AT LAW, AND 
REVISED BY THE PARTIES. 



LOUISVILLE: 
PRINTED BY MORTON & GRISWOIiD. 

1854. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by 

NATHANIEL FIELD, M.D., 

In the Clerk's Office, for the District of Indiana. 



The Library 
of Congress 

WASHIHG toN 



Stereotyped and Printed by 

MORTON & GR1SWOLD, ' 
Louisville, Ey. 



PREFACE. 



The relative position of the parties to the following debate, makes 
it necessary that the circumstances which superinduced it should be 
explained. A division of sentiment having occurred in a large and 
respectable church, in the vicinity of Indianapolis, identified with the 
reformation, as advocated by Mr. Alexander Campbell, which some- 
what disturbed the equanimity of some of the preachers in that 
connection, who, like their great l.eader, oppose every thing as specu- 
lative and useless that does not accord with their views, a proposition 
was made by the party holding the sleep of the dead, to discuss the 
mooted question ; which was accepted by Mr. Thomas P. Connelly, 
an evangelist of the Christian Church, then a resident of the city of 
Indianapolis. Brother Nathan Hornaday, on behalf of that part of 
the brotherhood holding my views of the dead, addressed me on the 
the subject, requesting me to meet Mr. Connelly, as the defender 
and exponent of their views. After mature deliberation, I consented 
to do so. My letter of acceptance was forwarded to Mr. Connelly, 
who then opened a correspondence with me on the subject, which 
resulted in an agreement to discuss the proposition presented and 
elaborated in the following pages. 

It was my desire to make the discussion cover the whole ground 
of difference, and, therefore, I tendered the following issues, viz : 

1. Man, by creation, or by virtue of his union with the first Adam, is 
immortal. Mr. Connelly taking the affirmative, Dr. Field the negative. 

2. When man dies, he falls into an unconscious state until the resurrec- 
tion. Dr. Field the affirmative, Mr. Connelly the negative. 

3. The punishment of the wicked will be endless suffering. Mi*. Connelly 
the affirmative, Dr. Field the negative, 

4. Ths, kingdom of God promised to the saints in ths Old and Nop 



4 PREFACE. 

Testaments, is yet future, and will not be set up and organized until the 
second advent of Christ. Dr. Field the affirmative, Mr. Connelly the 
negative, 

5. All that the saints ever will inherit, will be given to them on this earth, 
which is destined again to become a paradise, and be the everlasting abode 
of the redeemed. Dr. Field the affirmative, Mr. Connelly the negative. 

For good reasons, I need not mention, all of the propositions were 
declined, except the second, which was so modified as to give Mr. C. 
the affirmative. 

By this arrangement, the debate was narrowed down to a single 
question, rather too isolated for the edification of a church divided 
in sentiment on several collateral questions; nevertheless, the discus- 
sion unavoidably took such a direction, that some light was elicited 
on the general subject of life and death. In the whole, I am satisfied 
it will prove beneficial, and deeply interesting, at this particular 
juncture, when the popular mind is so much excited by the delusions 
and vagaries of modern spiritualism. It cannot be said that the 
state of the dead is a matter of no importance. Daily observation 
and experience contradict the assumption. The peculiar character 
of the age in which we live, the morbid appetite for the marvellous, 
and the extravagant love of excitement, so rife in society, civil and 
and religious, render a theological work of this kind both appropriate 
and opportune. To the student of the Bible, and, indeed, to every 
one desirous of correct information in regard to the state of the dead, 
and other kindred topics, it will be found to be a book of real prac- 
tical utility. 

Its publication has been delayed much beyond the time in which I 
supposed it could be got through the press ; but in consequence of 
very bad health, which prevented me from superintending the business, 
it was postponed. 

All the speeches have been revised by the parties, and therefore, 
receive their hearty approval. Mr. Connelly, living at some dis- 
tance from the place of publication, has not been able to read the 
proof-sheets of his speeches ; but especial care has been taken to 
preserve conformity to the manuscript he furnished, and no changes 
have knowingly been made. 

Mr. Connelly and myself, it is supposed, belong to one and the 
same church or ecclesiastical organization. This is a mistake. We 
once did ; but to relieve the minds of the ministry of the reformation, 



PREFACE. O 

so called, who were greatly troubled at the idea of being responsible 
for the views already hinted at, and to avoid contention and strife, 
not only for the views themselves, but for the liberty of speech, I 
came to the conclusion, some time ago, to take an independent stand 
and teach the scriptures, constitute churches, and advise and assist 
in the management of their temporal and evangelical affairs, without 
regard to my former connections and associations. By this step, I 
not only avoided the denunciations of the ministry of the reformation, 
who, from being the avowed champions of liberty and free discussion, 
have suddenly become the advocates of proscription and gag-laws ; 
but placed myself in a position favorable to a true and progressive \ 
reformation. Not an imperfect and restricted one, meted and bounded \ 
by the views and authority of one man, but by the Bible itself. My 
present position is not only promotive of a reformation of progress, 
but of union and co-operation for evangelical purposes, with all who 
practically and sincerely adopt the Bible alone as their creed. The 
church at Jeffersonville, of which I have the oversight, occupies 
broad and liberal ground, on which they can consistently invite all 
genuine and consistent advocates of reform to meet with them in 
labor and fellowship. It is their aim to practice what they profess — 
not only to say that all men are free to read and think for themselves, 
but to allow them to do it. 

I invoke for this work a calm and unprejudiced perusal, as embody- 
ing all the arguments of any importance on both sides of the question. 
Mr. Connelly has done his proposition full justice ; and if he has not 
succeeded in proving it, it is not because he lacked ability. He is a 
logician and an orator, and I do not believe that there is any man in 
Indiana, who could have managed his cause with more adroitness, or 
acquitted himself with greater credit. 

November 7, 1853. N. FIELD. 



RULES OF THE DISCUSSION 



First. It shall commence at 10 o'clock A. M., and close at 4 P. M. 
of each day, allowing an interval of two hours for refreshment. 

Second. The parties shall be limited to half hour speeches. 

Third. The speakers will observe towards each other personal 
respect and Christian courtesy in conducting the discussion. As 
their object is the discovery and dissemination of truth, they will 
cherish for each other that charity which is the bond of perfection. 

Fourth. The debate will continue from day to day, until the 
parties are satisfied that the arguments on both sides are exhausted. 

Fifth. During the discussion, there shall be no public expressions 
of the feelings and opinions of the auditors in regard to the question 
in debate. 

L. H. Jameson, 
W. G. Proctoh, 
John Hadlet, 

Moderators. 

Time of meeting; Friday, August 27, 1852. 



DEBATE ON THE STATE OF THE DEAD. 



MR. CONNELLY'S FIRST SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : — 

For the first time in my life, I stand before a 
popular audience as a debatant to contend for one of the 
great truths of Christianity. And I need not suggest to 
you, that our efforts, made in the right spirit and under- 
standing^ upon such subjects, may not be in vain, for 
every question tending to enlighten our understandings 
in relation to the nature and destiny of man, is eminently 
worthy of our attention. Such is the subject, for the 
discussion of which we are now convened. 

It may not be amiss, however, to say in the outset, 
that, in order that we may profit by this discussion, truth 
should be the only object of both speaker and hearer. 
We should look at every thing said, seriously, candidly, 
earnestly. We should be attentive, that we may know 
the meaning of what is said, and that we may learn what 
the word — the standard to which we all desire to conform 
in our faith and practice — teaches. Actuated by such 
desires, it is hardly possible that we should part without 
being profited by our meeting. But if we desire victory, 
rather than truth, the establishment of a favorite opinion, 
rather than the true import of the word of God, I need 



8 DEBATE ON THE 

not say that no good result may be expected to follow 
our efforts on this occasion, for such a disposition is 
utterly opposed to the spirit of truth. 

We all agree, that the word of God is truth, and that 
that word is found in the scriptures of the Old and New 
Testament. I expect to appeal to them in support of the 
proposition I have undertaken to defend, and my opponent 
will no doubt make a similar appeal. 

There is no question between us as to the truth of the 
scriptures. On that point we are agreed. Our only 
controversey is in reference to what the scriptures do 
really teach. And while I will quote scriptures to prove 
my proposition, and my brother will quote other scrip- 
tures to show the reverse, it will not prove that these 
scriptures contradict each other, but only that one or 
the other of us does not rightly understand them. To 
overcome any mis-apprehension on such seemingly 
conflicting passages of scripture, is the object for which 
we should both labor. And to harmonize such scripture 
it will not do to put a forced and unwarrantable construc- 
tion on either, but one that will readily harmonize with 
the context of each passage. Having said this much by 
way of introduction, I will now proceed to the develop- 
ment of my proposition, which reads as follows : viz : — 

** The scriptures teach that when man dies his spirit 
remains in a conscious state, separate from the body until the 
resurrection?' 

Before entering upon the discussion, it may not be 
amiss to define the terms of the proposition, as a correct 
understanding of them is essential to an understanding of 
all the arguments that may be adduced, either for or 
against the proposition. I shall then give you the sense 
. in which I employ the terms of the proposition. Man is 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 9 

a being distinguished by reason in whom matter and 
spirit are united. Spirit, is the immaterial intelligent 
part of man. Consciousness, possessing the power of 
knowing one's own thoughts. To die, to cease to live, 
the result of a separation of the spirit from the body. 
That we assume nothing in these definitions will appear 
as we proceed. 

Having thus briefly defined the terms of the proposition 
before us, I will in the next place state in a plain and 
comprehensive manner the main points embraced in the 
proposition one by. one. This will enable us to bestow 
proper attention upon each, and facilitate our understand- 
ing of the whole. First, then, I will endeavor to show that 
at death there is a separation of the spirit from the body. 

In proof of this I call your attention to the following 
passages of scripture. "Yea, surely God will not do 
wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment. 
Who hath given him a charge over the earth ? or who hath 
disposed the whole world ? If he set his heart upon man, 
if he gather to himself his spirit and his breath : all flesh 
shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto 
dust," Job xxxiv, 12, 17. You perceive, that in this 
scripture it is distinctly stated, that in death there is a 
separation of the spirit from the body. If he (God) set 
his heart upon man and take his spirit, his flesh returns 
to the dust. The spirit is taken by the Creator while the 
body goes to the dust. Again: "Then shall the dust 
return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit shall return 
unto God who gave it," Ecc. xii, 7. Here, also, we 
have a clear distinction between the spirit and the dust or 
body ; and it is affirmed that while the one in death 
returns to the earth as it was, the other goes to God who 
gave it. This was spoken by Solomon after he had 



10 DEBATE ON THE 

reviewed all the vanities and follies of earth, and had 
seen them all terminate at last in dust. He says this 
separation occurs when the silver cord is loosed, the 
golden bowl is broken, the pitcher is broken at the 
fountain, or the wheel at the cistern, and consequently 
at death. 

Again. " And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, 
he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, 
and having said thus, he gave up the ghost," Luke xxiii, 
46. This is the language of the blessed Saviour, as he 
hung upon the cross, when he was about to give up his 
life for the sins of men. He commends his spirit into the 
hands of his Father, making no mention, no allusion, 
whatever, to the body. It does not claim his care. Surely 
it would have been otherwise, if the body had been the 
man proper. But to the same effect is the following 
scripture: "And they stoned Stephen calling upon God, 
and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," Acts vii, 59. 
How similar this language to that of the dying Saviour ! 
Stephen here petitioned him in whom he trusted, for 
whose cause he had labored, and for which he was about 
to die, to receive his spirit. If the body was the man, 
and all die together, and lose consciousness in death, 
why did he not say, Lord Jesus, receive me, or my body. 
On any other hypothesis than that for which I contend, 
the language here is inexplicable. 

Again. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith 
without works is dead also," James ii, 26. James mani- 
festly shows in this statement, that the body is dead onl/ 
as separated from the spirit. I know the Apostle is here 
speaking of faith. But in order that he might make the great 
and important truth, that faith is dead, ineffectual, without 
works, stand prominently before the minds of those whom 



STATE OF THE DEAD. H 

he addressed, he adduced this familiar fact as an illustra- 
tion. And the fact that he thus familiarly employs this 
figure, clearly implies that that fact, from which the figure 
is deduced, was a part of the faith of the Christians whom 
he addressed. Had it been otherwise, the language would 
have been without meaning to them. Hence we must 
understand the Apostle as illustrating a doctrine not 
understood by those to whom he was writing, by one they 
did understand and believe, and from which they could 
derive a correct notion of the one he was endeavoring to 
teach, and this shows that my position was not only a part 
of his own faith, but the faith of the Church, at that time. 

These scriptures, then, we think, very distinctly and 
conclusively sustain the position, that death is a separation 
of the spirit from the body. We, therefore, repeat it, as 
a truth standing out prominently in the scriptures, that 
death is only a separation of body and spirit; from which 
it clearly appears that spirit and body, though united 
during life, are distinct in their natures and tendencies. 
We have given the several passages of scripture on which 
we rely as proof of this position in advance, that the 
brother may have a fair chance to meet and examine them, 
and show, if he can, that our conclusion is not legitimate. 

I affirm, in the second place, that -personality is attri- 
buted to the spirit in the scriptures. In proof of this 
position, I beg leave to cite the following scriptures : First, 
Eph. vi, 12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, 
but against principalities,, against powers, against the 
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual 
wickedness in high places ; " or as Macknight properly 
renders this passage, "against wicked spirits in the hea- 
venly regions.' * You perceive, my friends, that spiritual 
existences are clearly recognized, and that personality is 



12 DEBATE ON THE 

distinctly attributed to these spirits, in the language just 
read, as also consciousness, but of this in its proper place. 
Second, Heb.i, 7, "Who maketh his angels spirits and his 
ministers a flame of fire." We present this passage with 
this thought, that spirits are sometimes employed by God 
as his messengers ; and that this is a clear recognition of 
personality as an attribute belonging to spirits. 

We will now introduce a passage to show that the term 
spirit is applied to man before death: 1 John iv, 1, 
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits 
whether they are of God, for many false prophets are 
gone out into the world." It is here conceded, as inti- 
mated before, that the term spirit is not here applied to 
disembodied spirits, but to spirits united to the body before 
death, and means man. In the next place, we will give a 
scripture to show that the same term is applied to the 
dead : 1 Pet. hi, 19, 20, "By which he also went 
and preached to the spirits in prison, which sometime 
were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God 
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing 
wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." 
This is evidently spoken of the antideluvians, who are 
dead, and are indisputably spoken of as proper personali- 
ties. And as they are denominated spirits, and as we 
have shown that the spirit is separated from the body at 
death, they must be disembodied spirits. Again, having 
shown that the term spirit is applied to man while 
living, and that the spirit is separated from the body at 
death, and that the term is again applied to the dead, it 
follows that the spirit, whether in or out of the body, is 
the man proper ; for the term spirit is never properly 
applied to that which has no spirit, and consequently 
cannot apply to the body. 



STATE OP THE DEAD. 13 

It is not contended that Christ preached personally to 
these spirits in the prison to which they are confined, but 
that, when they were in the flesh, he preached to them by 
the Spirit, through Noah, while the ark was preparing. 
Here, then, the term spirit is applied to men who were 
once alive — to men who lived before the prophets and 
before the flood, but are here spoken of as spirits in 
prison, in the days of the Apostle Peter. [ Time out.'] 



14 DEBATE ON THE 



DR. FIELD'S FIRST REPLY. 



Brethren and Friends : — 

I am happy to find that my friend and opponent, 
considers the question we are about to discuss, both 
interesting and important. He thinks it worthy the 
attention of every lover of truth ; and hence, he can 
with propriety, contend for his proposition as embodying 
one of the great truths of Christianity. It is not often 
that we meet with gentlemen holding his views honest 
enough to admit that the question before us is Of any 
practical utility. On the contrary, they have treated it, or 
professed to treat it, as unprofitable and vain; — as a 
mere philosophical speculation, hatched in the imagina- 
tion of some moon-stricken visionary, whose object was to 
gratify a morbid appetite for the marvelous, or to acquire 
notoriety. How often has the state of the dead, and 
man's final destiny, been treated with contempt or neglect, 
as untaught questions beyond our grasp or comprehen- 
sion ? And yet strange to tell, the great leader and 
oracle of "the current reformation," so called, wrote an 
extra of forty pages on the Life and Death question. 
This extra, replete with sophistry, and as dogmatical as 
any of the decretals of the Council of Trent is regarded 
by him and his followers as an unanswerable and final 
settlement of the questions involved in the nature and 
destiny of man ! Every conclusion or opinion at variance 
with his own, is a vain and foolish speculation, a mere 
"notim" of no earthly value ! But when he discusses 



STATE OF TAE DEAD. 15 

these untaught questions, he makes them as clear as a 
sunbeam ! 

I repeat, then, I am glad to hear my opponent say, 
that the question under discussion is one of great impor- 
tance. What can be more important, my friends, than 
the origin, nature and destiny of man ? How can we 
understand the plan of salvation without knowing who is 
to be saved, and what we are to be saved from ? How 
can we understand and apply a remedy, if we know 
nothing about the constitution of the patient or the 
disease ? In order, then, to understand the system of 
human redemption, we must understand man. We must 
study his nature, his constitution, his moral and physical 
condition. We must ascertain what he lost by the fall, 
into what circumstances and misfortunes it placed him, 
and what would have been the result, had not God 
provided a remedy for him. This knowledge, indispensable 
to a clear perception, and a proper appreciation of the 
gospel of our salvation, is what I desire to see developed 
in the progress of this debate. 

With these introductory remarks, I will proceed to no- 
tice my friend's definitions of the terms of his proposition. 

"Man," he says "is a being distinguished by reason, in 
whom matter and spirit are united." From what, let me 
ask, is he distinguished by these peculiarities ? I suppose 
he means from the inferior animals. But how and where 
does he learn this distinction ? That man is a being 
distinguished from the inferior animals by superior reason 
will not be denied, but to say that the attribute of reason 
is possessed by man only, is contrary to fact and scripture. 
I know, my friends, that according to the philosophy of 
this world, reason is denied to the inferior animals, and 
all their actions are ascribed to an attribute called instinct. 



16 DEBATE ON THE 

But the difference between instinct and reason lias never 
been explained to my satisfaction. If observation and 
the Bible are to be consulted, it is evident, that the 
difference between man and other animals, is not in the 
exclusive attribute of reason possessed by man, but in the 
sujieriority of it. His organization is in every respect 
superior ; hence the superiority of his mind. In this 
respect, however, there is as much difference between 
men as there is between the lower order of animals. The 
gradations from a Homer, or a Newton, to an idiot, are as 
regular and well marked as they are from the orang- 
outang to the animalcule. Knowledge is attributed to 
the ox. and wisdom to the fowls of heaven, in the Bible, 
and it will be conceded I presume, that these are pecu- 
liarities of mentality. Facts are stubborn arguments, my 
friends, and you that have witnessed the astonishing feats 
of the inferior animals in obedience to the teachings of 
man, cannot doubt the fact that they are endowed with 
reason. Were it not so, how could they be taught to 
fear and labor for man ? 

Another item in this definition of man, is, that in him 
there is a union of matter and spirit. This is also 
considered by my opponent as a distinguishing peculiarity 
of his nature ! Suppose I prove from scripture that the 
inferior animals have spirits as well as man ? What 
then ? Why that in this respect there is no difference 
between them. My opponent will not deny that beasts 
have spirits. Why then does he assert that in this 
respect there is a distinction? His definition is as 
applicable to the horse as to man. What, then, becomes 
of his philosophy based on it ? His definition of spirit, if 
true, would be the proof of his proposition. If, in the 
course of this discussion, he prove that the spirit of 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 1 7 

man is an immaterial and intelligent entity, when 
separated from the body by death, his proposition is fully 
sustained. But here we take issue, and await his proofs. 

Conscious, or consciousness, he defines to be "the power 
of knowing one's thoughts." Whether it is knowing, or 
the power of knowing our thoughts, is not material to the 
question. In either view of the attribute it is an evidence 
of rationality and of living personality. If he prove that 
the spirit of man after death possesses either thought or 
the power of thinking, he has gained his point. We need 
not, then, spend time in examining the metaphysical sub- 
tleties involved in this definition. 

Death, he defines to be the cessation of life, the result 
of a separation of body and spirit. This is a vague 
definition, but contrived so as to be in harmony with his 
proposition and the arguments to be adduced. Webster 
defines death thus : "That state of a living being in which 
there is a total and permanent cessation of the vital func- 
tions, when the organs have not only ceased to act, but 
have lost the susceptibility of renewed action." This 
definition, simple as it is, is in strict accordance with the 
laws of life, and the concurrent testimony of observation 
and facts. Then why not adopt it, as there is nothing in 
the Bible to contradict it ? In proof of the correctness of 
his definition of death he quotes Job xxxiv, 14, 15, which 
reads as follows : "If he set his heart upon man; if he 
gather unto himself his spirit and his breath ; all flesh 
shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust." 
This, he assumes, teaches the separation of the body and 
spirit in death, and thence he infers the separate existence 
of the spirit after death. Now, I affirm, that this passage 
simply states the fact, that when the spirit is taken from 
man he perishes ; without so much saying one word about 



IB DEBATE ON THE 

the separate existence of the spirit after death. Notice 
particularly, my friends, the language of the text. " If 
God set his heart upon man, 7 ' who is man ? My friend 
says a compound of matter and mind. Who returns to 
dust ? Man — this compound of matter and mind. Then, 
what remains to think and to feel ? Besides, all scripture 
must be made to harmonize ; for we are taught that no 
scripture is of private interpretation. By which I under- 
stand that no one passage must be separated from its 
context or relation to other passages on the same subject, 
and interpreted without reference to its agreement or 
disagreement therewith. The context and other similar 
scriptures must be consulted, and especially all similar 
passages in the same author should be carefully compared 
with that under consideration. In other words, no single 
passage of scripture is to be so construed as to destroy 
the harmony of the whole. Bearing this rule in mind, 
let us proceed to notice some scriptures referring to the 
same subject as that under discussion, and see how 
they harmonize with my friend's interpretation. Job 
xiv, 10-12. "But man dieth and wasteth away, yea, 
man giveth up the ghost and where is he? As the 
waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth, and 
drieth up, so man lieth down and riseth not till the 
heavens be no more, they shall not awake nor be raised 
out of their sleep." Does this look like a survival of the 
conscious and intelligent part of man ? Who lies down 
and rises not ? Man. Not his body merely, but the 
man proper, who my friend says, is the spirit, the 
intelligent and conscious thing. Is there any intimation 
here of an intermediate state of consciousness? None 
whatever. But this is not all on the same subject, by the 
same inspired writer. In chap, iii, 11-16,, he asks, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. lft 

"Why died I not from the womb ? Why did I not give 
up the ghost when I came out of the belly ? Why did 
the knees prevent me ? Or why the breast, that I should 
suck ? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I 
I should have slept, then had I been at rest with kings 
and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places 
for themselves ; or with princes that . had gold, who 
filled their houses with silver, or as an hidden untimely 
birth, I had not been, as infants which never saw light." 
Does this look like living after death ? Certainly not. 
Had Job died at birth he would have slept. He would 
have been as though he had not been. This cannot refer 
to his body, for he uses the pronoun I, signifying himself 
i — the man proper. 

The passage quoted by my friend, from Ecclesiastes, 
xii, 7, " Then shall the dust return to the dust as it was, 
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." If my 
friend intends to prove by this a separation of body and 
spirit at death, it is conceded ; but, if he understand it to 
mean that the spirit continues as a conscious, intelligent 
entity, I deny it. It manifestly does not prove that when 
the spirit returns to God, it there enjoys a separate, con- 
scious, and intelligent existence. It proves too much for 
the purposes of my friend ; for what it asserts, is true of 
the spirit of every man, or man in a general sense — the 
good and the bad, the just and the unjust. And does the 
gentleman affirm that the spirits of all men return at 
death to their Creator ? We should like to be informed 
on this point. As before remarked, however, the passage 
proves too much for his argument ; and therefore proves 
nothing at all. But as we shall have occasion to notice 
this passage again, we shall pass it by for the present. 
Again: Solomon says, Eccl. iii, 18-21, "I said in my 



20 DEBATE OX THE 

heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God 
might manifest them, and that they might see, that they 
themselves are beasts. For that which befalleththe sons 
of men, befalleth beasts ; even one thinof befalleth them : 
as the one dieth, so dieth the other, so that man (in 
death) hath no pre-eminence over a beast; for all is 
vanity. All go to one place : all are of the dust, and all 
turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of a man, 
that goeth upward, and the spirit of a beast that goeth 
downward to the earth ? It is the opinion of some critics, 
that there is an inaccuracy in the translation of the last 
verse. Martin Luther, I believe, translates it thus : 
" Who knoweth ivhether the spirit of a man goeth upward, 
and the spirit of the beast goeth downward to the earth ? " 
This agrees with the preceding verse, which declares 
that they all go to one place, and that place is the dust. 
Humiliating thought ! However mortifying it may be to 
the pride of man, in the matter of death, he is, in 
consequence of sin compelled, like inferior animals, to 
suffer and return to dust. But it is the glorious hope 
of the resurrection, that gives man a pre-eminence 
above them. That hope does not animate the beast. 
He dies to live no more forever. Not so with man. He 
has hope in his death of deliverance from the bondage of 
corruption. Again : Eccl. ix, 6, 6, " For the living know 
that they shall die : but the dead know not anything, 
neither have they any more a reward ; for the memory of 
them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, 
and their envy are now perished, neither have they any 
more a portion forever, in any thing that is done under 
the sun." I suppose my friend will admit that love, 
hatred and envy are passions peculiar to the intellectual 
and moral constitution of man. If they perish, must 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 21 

not that constitution perish also ? Besides, it is affirmed 
the dead know not any thing. Which cannot be true, if 
the intelligent and thinking part — the man proper — 
survives death. 

I come now to notice the remarks of my friend, on the 
dying words of our Saviour, and of Stephen — the former 
found in Luke xxiii, 46, and the latter in Acts vii, 59. 
The strength of the argument here rests upon the import 
of the word spirit, which will be examined in due time. 
Nothing, however, is here affirmed of the consciousness 
of the spirit after death, and during its separation from 
the body. Stephen said, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit/' 
and then fell asleep. Who fell asleep ? Stephen's body ? 
No : but Stephen himself. The passage from James ii, 
26: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so 
faith without works is dead also." This proves nothing, 
as it is here employed as an illustration, and not as an • 
evidence of the doctrine my friend advocates. He may, 
however, say, that its employment as a figure, implies 
that it represents an existing fact, and that the idea thus 
represented is the separation of spirit and body in death. 
This would be a fair conclusion, but it adds no strength 
to his position. And even suppose it granted, — what 
follows ? Why, plainly, no conclusion incompatible with 
the doctrines I advocate. 

I come, in the next place, to notice the gentleman's 
second position, which is that pe? sonality is applied to the 
spirit in the scriptures. 

In support of this position he cites Eph. vi, 12, which 
reads as follows : "For we wrestle not against flesh and 
blood, but against principalities, against powers, against 
the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual 
wickedness in high places." Now, I really desire to know 



22 DEBATE ON THE 

if my friend believes that the spiritual wickedness here 
spoken of, really does mean the spirits of dead men. 
There is plainly no ground in the text for such an inference 
to rest upon, — not the slightest intimation of it in the 
Apostle's language. Nothing but a forced and unnatural 
interpretation could wrest such a meaning from the passage. 
Indeed, it is a mere assumption, supported by no shadow 
of proof. If we must go beyond the text for its meaning, 
why not assume that the powers here alluded to, are 
wicked angels ? That position would be much more 
reasonable than that of my friend. They are spiritual 
beings. But how or where do we learn that they are the 
spirits of dead men ? Not till after the resurrection do 
we find the term spiritual applied to men ; and it is then 
employed in direct relation to the preceding state of mor- 
tality. Thus, the Apostle speaking of man, says — ."It is 
sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body ; it is 
sown in weakness, it is raised in power ; it is sown in 
dishonor, it is raised in glory'* It is here manifest that 
after the resurrection, the subjects of that change will 
possess bodies purely spiritual, and wholly different from 
our present bodies, which are mortal and perishable. 
But all this is aside from the true meaning of the text 
now before us. The Apostle is plainly alluding to the 
opposition, which the church then encountered from evil 
disposed, wicked men who had been elevated to high 
places in the church, or in the civil goverments under 
which Christians lived, and under the evil administration 
of which they suffered. This view will be fully established 
if we take into consideration the fact, that the term 
spirit is often applied in scripture to persons and men. 
The passage to which our attention has been called, is 1 
John iv, 1 : " Beloved believe not every spirit (person), 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 23 

but try the spirits (persons) &c. Every spirit (person) 
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is 
of God." The context shows that these spirits are false 
prophets and false teachers. 

In this passage the Apostle manifestly alludes to men 
when he employs the term spirit. He cautions the 
disciples, not to believe every spirit, — i. e. every one 
who might profess to be a prophet, — but to try the 
spirits ; for many false prophets had even then gone out 
to deceive and destroy the church. 

The passage which my friend introduces from 1 Pet. 
iii, 19, is explicable on the same principles of interpreta- 
tion, which I have applied to other texts. It reads thus : 
" By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
prison ; which were sometime disobedient, when once the 
long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls 
were saved by water." Now it is not intended that the 
Saviour went to Hell to preach to these spirits. The 
gentleman will not take that ground. However fancifui 
and strange the doctrines inferred from this passage have 
been heretofore, he will not go that far. He has too 
much caution for that. Mr. Ferguson, of Nashville, 
Tennessee, has made it the foundation of some wonderful 
conjectures. With these examples before him, I trust 
my opponent will not fall into similar absurdities. 

The plain meaning of the passage seems to be this — 
that in the days of Noah, our Saviour, while the ark was 
preparing, preached to the spirits, or the persons who are 
now in prison. [Time out.] 



24 DEBATE ON THE 



MR. CONNELLY'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens, 

The brother objects to my definitions. This is 
as I expected, for I well knew that the terms of my 
proposition in their common and accredited meanings, 
were at war with his whole philosophy. They are "more 
fanciful and metaphysical, than scriptural." You, my 
friends, will be better able to determine of that matter, 
after you see my success in establishing them by the 
scriptures. He doubts my definition of man, because he 
thinks it may apply with equal propriety to the inferior 
animals. But why does he call instinct reason ? Reason, 
according to Dr. Webster, is that faculty of the mind, 
by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good 
from evil, <fec. Instinct is a power of mind by which 
animals are unerringly and spontaneously, directed to act 
without deliberation or experience and without having 
any end in view. Thus you perceive that his objection 
to my definition, arises from confounding terms which are 
in their meaning and application, entirely distinct. A very 
fruitful source of error and difficulty throughout his entire 
system of philosophy. He objects to my definitions of 
spirit, 1st, "Because," he says, "immaV.nality is nothing 
and hence can neither be conscious or //.telligent." Here 
again he assumes a definition for inr/< atari ality in which 
he is not sustained by any reputab]?. 'rjthority, human or 
divine. Here again he confounds '/< e terms, matter and 
substance. By matter is understr vJ. that which is visible 
or tangible, — hence appreci :'n'' hj the senses. By 
substance is understood tha' /, '-h really exists, and i? 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 26 

applicable to both matter and spirit. But according to 
the brother's vocabulary, nothing exists that is not an 
object of sensation. And hence, as the Deity is not an 
object of sensation, he has no existence. I should not be 
surprised if his philosophy should lead him into atheism 
yet. He again objects to my definition, because it is not 
in the Bible. Does he intend to say by this objection, 
that the Bible is a dictionary, and that no word is to be 
used that the Bible does not explicitly define, or in a sense, 
not explicitly stated in the Bible ! This is certainly 
something new. It outrages every principle of sound 
interpretation. It has generally been understood that the 
Bible was written in the popular language of the times ; 
and is to be interpreted by the rules by which other books 
of the same antiquity are to be understood, But this is 
altogether too Ashdodical for the gentleman. He objects 
to my definition in the third place, because he thinks 
" away from materiality, we are lost in conjecture and 
thrown adrift without chart or eompass on the ocean of 
uncertainty," That an Atheist rejecting the Bible and 
relying wholly on sensation should be thus confused, 
would not be a matter of surprise. But for a man 
professing faith in the word of God to be thus lost in 
uncertainty, on a subject that is purely a matter of faith, 
argues badly, both for his philosophy and his faith. 

As the brother has given no reason for objecting to my 
definition of the word conscious, and has virtually 
confessed that he has no confidence in his own, we will 
regard him as conceding mine. 

As to my definition of die or death, I think we shall be 

fully able to show that my friend is altogether deceived, 

when he supposes that the authorities are against me, 

and that the reverse is true that they are against himself y 

2 



26 DEBATE ON THE 

and in my favor. He loses sight of the fact clearly 
recognized, both in and out of the Bible, that there are 
two kinds of life, — animal and spiritual, and that the 
definition which he quotes from Dr. Webster, evidently 
alludes to the state of the body when animal life is gone, 
as a consequence of the departure of the spirit. This 
will more fully appear hereafter. We have shown from 
various scriptures, that death is a separation of spirit and 
body; this position my friend has already admitted. 
We may therefore regard it as a settled point. 

He says Job xxxiv, 14, 15, "simply states the fact 
that when the spirit is taken from man he perishes." 
Does he intend to affirm by this, that the spirit is no part 
of the man ? If not, his remarks about a compound of 
matter and mind returning to dust, are without point. 
But we will attend to that in its proper place. The only 
point I wished to prove by this scripture, is that there is 
a separation of body and spirit at death. This he has 
conceded, and hence his appeal to Job xiv, 10-12, is 
premature and without force. To this and to his quota- 
tion from Job viii, I will attend when I come to that 
feature of my proposition. With reference to Eccles. xii, 
7, he admits the only point I quoted the passage to 
prove. But again he attempts to evade the point, by 
asserting that this scripture does not prove a conscious 
state after death. The only point I designed to prove by 
this passage and the one in Job xxxiv, and some others, 
is the separation at death. In Job, we are clearly taught, 
that when the spirit is separated from the body it returns 
to dust. And here the preacher informs us that the dust 
shall return to the dust as it was. When shall this occur ? 
When the silver cord is loosed, and the golden bowl at 
the fountain is broken. In other words at death. Some 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 2"l 

of his remarks are so peculiar, that I must give them a 
passing notice. After admitting that this scripture proves 
a separation — he then says it proves too much, and 
therefore it don't prove anything with him. It does prove 
and it don't prove at the same time ; this is surely singular 
enough. According to this if A should be summoned to 
prove that B killed C, though he might testify to the 
fact, postively, if he should happen to know that B had 
killed D too, his evidence I suppose would prove nothing. 
But what does it teach? That the spirits of all men, 
return, at death, to their Creator, he says, and asks if I 
believe it ? to which I answer, yes ; Does not the 
brother believe it? He next undertakes to prove that 
beasts have spirits. Suppose we grant it, does that prove 
that man has none, or that man's spirit is not separated 
from his body at death ! How then does that militate 
against the position we have undertaken to establish. 
Whether beasts have spirits or not, is entirely aside from 
the subject of controversy. We might therefore admit 
all he has said on that point, without, in the least 
compromising our position. We have to do with men — 
not with beasts, and hence we are under no obligations to 
follow the gentleman, when he may see proper to turn 
aside to discuss the nature of inferior animals. We 
should not suffer our minds by extraneous matters, to be 
diverted from the question, h the spirit of man separated 
from tlie body, at death ; and fso, does it remain conscious 
until the resurrection ? We affirm, and the brother denies. 
We shall have occasion to examine Ecclesiastes ix, when 
we come to show that consciousness is an attribute of the 
spirit. But as it is forced upon us in advance, we will 
now say, that he assumes that this scripture proves that 
theie is no consciousness after death, contrary to its own 



28 DEBATE ON TEE 

context and the evident design of the whole book. In 
order to see this and to get the true import of the 
passage, let us compare it with its own context. Begin 
then with verse 3 : "This is an evil amoncr all things 
that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto 
all ; yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, 
and madness is in their heart while they live, and after 
that they go to the dead." This is entirely inexplicable 
on the assumption that there is no consciousness after 
death. For how can madness exist where no consciousness 
is. Again, verse 4th : "For to him that is joined to all 
the living there is hope." Hope of what, I ask ? evidently 
hope of salvation. Hence we understand the fifth verse, 
"For the living know that they shall die ; but the dead 
know not any thing," to simply teach that, after death, 
there is no knowledge of the way of repentance and 
salvation ; to the dead there is no preaching the gospel. 
Not so in life. There is hope in life, for there is still time 
and opportunity to prepare for death. The way of salva- 
tion is still open and eternal life attainable. At death all 
this ceases. 

This view of the passage harmonizes with the imme- 
diate context, with the scope and design of the book. 
For the object which the writer had in view evidently 
was, to impress the mind of the reader with the thought 
that all earthly things were vanity and vexation of spirit, 
and that if, during life, there has been no preparation for 
death, there is no hope of life and salvation, for the means 
are not extended to the dead. Hence it is said, verse 10, 
" Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, 
for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wis- 
dom, in the grave, whither thou goest." But the brother's 
interpretation seems clearly to imply that man has a cer- 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 29 

tain number of actions to perform, and he should therefore 
hurry ; but why do so unless he has a fixed time to die. 
But I again repeat that my only object in quoting the 
scripture from Eccl. xii, 7, was to prove that, at death, 
there is a separation of the body and the spirit, without 
any reference to the condition of the spirit. That we 
expect to show from other scriptures. 

He thinks that our argument from James ii, 26, is too 
far-fetched. I can account for this remark from the 
brother only from his inability to avoid its force. For I 
cannot see what other idea could be attached to the phrase 
"body icithout the spirit," than a separation. But does 
it not seem a little strange to you, my friends, that he 
should concede the fact of separation at death, and then 
continue his effort to show that the scriptures on which 
I rely for evidence do not teach it ? It indicates that the 
concession has been made with some reluctance. 

We will now return to our second position, that person- 
ality is an attribute of the spirit. This too has been virtually 
conceded; but still he undertakes to show that the scrip- 
tures I cite do not prove it. Let us look at them again. 
Eph. vi, 12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, 
but against principalities, against powers, against the 
rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits 
in the heavenly regions." The brother objects to my ren- 
dering of this passage, and says there is no ground in the 
text for supposing the wicked spirits here are the spirits 
of dead men. So far as the position of personality as 
attributed to spirit is concerned, it makes no manner of 
difference, unless he can show that all spiritual nature is 
not the same. Hence he gains nothing by supposing them 
to be lapsed angels. For if beings purely spiritual do 
exist independent of matter, we are led irresistibly to 



30 DEBATE ON THE 

conclude that the spirits of men, possessing, as they do, 
all the essential inherent properties of spiritual beings, 
may exist as distinct beings, and seeming conscious of 
this, my friend insists that the rendering we gave this 
passage is wrong. We will now proceed to give some 
reasons for it. The passage rendered in the common 
version, " spiritual wickedness," is jmeumatika tesponerias, 
in the Greek, and literally means the spiritual things 
of wickedness. Now, I ask, what can spiritual things of 
wickedness mean, but wicked spirits. To see that this is 
not an unusual rendering of similar constructions, even in 
the common version, let us look at some other passages. 
Rom. ii, 4, " chr lesion tou T/icou" — literally the good 
things of God — rendered in the common version, the 
goodness of God. 2 Cor. viii, 8, " agajtes gnecsion" — 
literally the sincere things of your love — rendered the 
sincerity of your love. Many other examples might be 
added to these, but these are sufficient, for the present, to 
show that it is no uncommon thing to render a Greek 
adjective by an English noun, and hence show the correct- 
ness of Macknight's translation of the passage. " Wicked 
spirits" in the heavenly regions is, then, the meaning of 
the original. The construction of the sentence requires 
this rendering. The Apostle says we wrestle not against 
flesh and blood, but against wicked spirits. You perceive 
that flesh and blood, and wicked spirits, are here placed 
in contrast, which shows clearly that he did not mean 
men in high office. And that we would assume nothing 
by regarding these wicked spirits the spirits of wicked 
men, I think will fully appeal* before we are done with 
this discussion. 

With reference to 1 Pet. iii, 19, it matters not what 
curious or wonderful things have been said or written on 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 31 

this passage. What if brother Ferguson has advanced 
some singular or even absurd speculations upon it. We 
are not responsible for his absurdities. The errors of men 
on any subject can never be regarded as a good reason 
why other men should not endeavor to ascertain the truth 
on the subject upon which they have erred. But the 
brother concedes that the spirits here spoken of by the 
Apostle are the antideluvians, and that they are now in 
prison. I wish this concession to be remembered ; for I 
regard it as conceding the whole subject of controversy. 
For we have already shown, and he has admitted, that the 
spirit is separated from the body at death, and as these 
persons had died, and hence the separation with them had 
occurred, and as they are still denominated spirits, it must 
be to their spirits as separate existences, and not to their 
bodies. For there is no authority for denominating that 
spirit from which the spirit has departed, and the term is 
never so applied. And thus it follows, as I showed in the 
conclusion of my first speech, that the spirit, whether in 
or out of the body, is the man proper. This we regard 
as a cardinal point in this discussion, and should be kept 
in mind. [ Time out^\ 



3°2 DEBATE ON THE 



DR. FIELD'S SECOND REPLY. 



My Friends : — 

It is essential to the philosophy taught in my 
opponent's proposition, that he should prove that the 
inferior animals have no reason ; and I might add, that 
it is equally as important to prove that they have no 
spirits. He has not, nor will he deny, that the Bible 
says repeatedly that they have spirits ; aye> and souls too. 
Nor has he denied that they are said to possess wisdom 
and knowledge. Now, the difficulty with my opponent 
is this : He assumes that spirit, from its very nature, is 
intelligent and immortal ; and as it can and does exist 
separate from matter in a conscious state, if he admit 
that beasts have spirits as well as man, they must also 
be intelligent and immortal, and consequently exist con- 
sciously after death. I trust you all see the dilemma. 
Mr. Wesley and Adam Clarke, if I mistake not, perceived 
this result of my friend's logic, and in order to be 
consistent, honestly taught the resurrection of the inferior 
animals/ Why does he not do likewise ? 

He has given us a definition of reason and instinct. 
The former, he says, "is that faculty of the mind by 
which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from 
evil. The latter (instinct) is a power of mind by which 
animals are unerringly and spontaneous/?/ directed to act 
without deliberation or experience, and without having 
any end in view*" 

If this definition be correct, I apprehend he will have 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 33 

some trouble in reconciling it with his proposition. For 
example : A being that cannot distinguish truth from 
falsehood, and good from evil, has no reason. Idiots, 
infants, and insane persons, cannot distinguish truth from 
falsehood, good from evil. In what respect, then, do 
they differ from the inferior animals, and how can they 
be immortal ? 

But he says, " Instinct is a power of the mind, (mark 
the expression, my friends,) by which the inferior animals 
act." So, then, according to my opponent and Dr. 
Webster, they have mind, and that mind possesses a 
power or faculty of acting unerringly in certain matters ! 
This is strange, indeed, especially when we learn from 
this sage definition that they have no end in view ! 
Now, my friends, I submit it to you, as common sense 
people, if this definition does not, in some respects, 
contradict facts that come under your daily observation ? 
Do you not, almost every day, see something in the 
actions of the inferior animals to convince you that the 
philosophy of this world, which denies to them any reason 
at all, is vain, and worse than vain. 

In his explanation of the difference between matter and 
substance, he says I confound the two together. He 
makes them quite different. My perception, I must 
admit, is too obtuse for such philosophical subtleties. 
Matter, he says, "is that which is visible, tangible, or 
appreciable by the senses." Substance, he says, "is 
understood to be that which really exists, and is applicable 
to both matter and spirit." This is certainly a very lucid 
definition of substance. The common sense understanding 
of it is, that matter is substance, and spirit is substance ; 
then, of course, matter, substance, and spirit, are essen- 
tially the same. Again, if immateriality is substance, and 



34 



DEBATE ON THE 



substance is an attribute of matter, then immateriality and 
matter, so far as his definition is concerned, are the same. 
For remember, my friends, he says that substa?icc is 
equally an attribute or property of spirit and matter. 
To sum this matter up, then, it will stand thus : Spirit 
is an immateriality, immateriality is substance, and substance 
is matter. After all, then, he is a materialist ! 

He says, I object to his definition because it is not in 
the Bible. This is a mistake. I object to it because it 
contradicts the Bible. I admit the Bible is not a dictionary, 
but nevertheless we can learn from it the sense in which 
words are used. If we cannot, then it is not a self- 
interpreting book. 

My opponent thinks that I am premature in my 
quotations of scripture, to show that the spirit has no 
conscious separate existence after death. But I did not 
quote the passages, I introduced for the purpose of 
raising that question now. My object was, to show that 
the doctrine for which he contends must be compared 
with all that Job and Solomon have written ; and his 
interpretation, of particular passages shown to be consis- 
tent with the whole, or rejected as untrue. Now, these 
writers show no difference between the spirit of a man 
and that of a beast, in death ; for it must be recollected 
that there is a great difference between the fact, that 
there is a separation between the body and spirit at death, 
and the assumed fact, that the latter exists consciously 
after that separation. The scriptures show, what we 
never denied, that the separation really does take place ; 
but the same authors and texts clearly rebut the suppo- 
sition that the spirit remains conscious after that event. 
How could I avoid, therefore, noticing the fact, that 
scriptures quoted by my friend, clearly refute his argu- 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 35 

ments on the main question in controversy. That were 
indeed difficult. 

Allow me to call your attention again to Ecclesiastes, 
ninth chapter. Now here it is manifest, that not the body 
alone suffers death — goes to the grave and corruption — 
but the man, and there " is no hope for him." If a man 
survive, there is hope for him. His condition is not. 
utterly hopeless ; but Solomon speaks of the dead as 
having no hope. If the spirit existed separately and 
consciously, possessing the capacity to think and act, to 
suffer and enjoy, then there would be hope even in death. 
The plain inference from all this is, that at death all 
consciousness ceases to exist — that the dead sleep, and 
know not any thing. All the scriptures referred to by 
my friend harmonize with what I have said, and fully 
asrree, as I shall have occasion to show hereafter. 

I repeat, my friends, that when a passage of scripture 
is appealed to, as proof of a theory, if it contradict any 
material part of that theory, it proves too much. Suppose, 
then, that A should be summoned to prove that B killed 
C, and that C is concealed or buried in a certain place, 
and it should turn out that the body of C could not 
be found in the place designated, what would be the 
conclusion ? Evidently that he is a very doubtful, if not 
an incredible witness. Now my friend quotes Eccl. xii, 
to prove a separation of body and spirit at death, which 
no one denies. But at the same time it is an important 
part of his theory, that this spirit goes to a sort of prison 
called hades, and this the text contradicts. What is the 
inference ? Why that his theory, at least, is erroneous. 

He thinks my construction of Eccl. ix, 5, contrary to 
the context, and the design of the book. This context is 
the preceding verse, and reads as follows : '» This is an 



36 DEBATE ON THE 

evil among all things that are done under the sun, that 
there is one event unto all : yea, also the heart of the 
sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart 
while they live, and after that they go to the dead. For 
to him that is joined to all the living there is hope." 
(Verses 3, 4.) How this conflicts with my interpretation 
of the fifth verse I cannot see. But my opponent asks, 
with an air of confidence, " How can madness exist where 
there is no consciousness ? " I answer, it cannot. But 
this is assuming that those who go to the dead carry 
their madness with them. The passage does not say so. 
It is in their hearts while they lice, and not after they are 
dead. For the fifth verse declares that the dead know not 
any thing ; and the next one says "that their love, and 
their hatred, and their envy, are now perished." How, 
then, can they have madness in their hearts, when all 
their knowledge and passions have become extinct ? 

He says the dead have hope of salvation, and hence he 
understands the declaration that " the dead know not any 
thing," to mean, " that after death there is no more 
preaching to them, and no knowledge of the way of 
repentance and salvation." But Solomon says they know 
not any thing. They have no knowledge of any thing 
else. Why not stick to the letter of the text ? How 
much better it would be for my opponent, and you, my 
friends, if he would just quote a passage that says, in 
plain and intelligible language, what his proposition 
affirms. It would save him and you a deal of trouble, 
if he would give usa" thus saith the Lord " for it. How 
quickly he would end this debate. Instead of this course 
of disputation, once the boast and pride of his party, he 
is compelled to rely on inferential reasoning to prove his 
doctrine ! A forced and unnatural meaning must be 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 37 

given to certain passages of scripture, as silent as the 
grave in regard to his philosophical tenet. 

I come now to notice his remarks on the personality of 
the spirit. I presume, of course, he means the spirit 
mentioned in his proposition, that is to say, the spirits of 
dead men. I would notify him and you, my friends, that 
there is no controversy about the personality and intelli- 
gence of God and angels. It is about the spirit of man 
after its separation from the body. One of his positions, 
subordinate to his main proposition, is, that the spirit of 
man is a personality. That it is in reality the man proper. 
Here, then, we are at issue ; and as I have already said, 
this controversy could be abruptly terminated by producing 
a "thus saith the Lord" for this doctrine. I admit that 
in one sense of the word personality is predicated of spirit, 
but not of the spirit of a dead man. This I will illustrate 
hereafter. 

One of his proof texts is Eph. vi, 12, on which he has 
offered a Greek criticism. He insists that a proper render- 
ing of this passage proves, that there are wicked spirits 
in the heavenly regions, with whom Christians have to 
wrestle. But does it prove that they are the spirits of 
dead men ? Not at all. Admitting, then, for the sake of 
the argument, that there are "wicked spirits" in the 
heavenly regions — in the air if you please, what of it? 
Does it follow that they are human spirits ? He says I 
gain nothing by supposing that they are lapsed angels, 
unless I admit that all spiritual nature is the same ! Here, 
then, he asserts by implication that all spiritual nature is 
the same. Therefore, the spirits of the inferior animals 
are in the same condition as those of men after death ! 
Just think of it, my friends, the air you breathe is full of 
the spirits of men and beasts ! ! The countless millions 



38 DEBATE ON THE 

of quadrupeds and birds on "which the human family have 
subsisted, had immortal spirits, and are now swarming in 
the air ! ! ! But as I shall have occasion to notice his 
criticism after he shall have fully Offered his reasons for 
it, I will dismiss this passage with the remark, that I 
have lying on the stand, the new translation of the 
New Testament, by Alexander Campbell — I call it his, 
because he has made so many emendations of the transla- 
tions of George Campbell, Philip Doddridge, and James 
Macknight, that it is really his translation. I do not, 
however, object to it on this account. It is unquestionably 
superior to any translation extant. Now why not appeal 
to it, and thus supersede the necessity for an appeal to 
the Greek ? Is his translation incorrect ? Will neither 
the common version nor Mr. Campbell's answer his pur- 
pose ? Are we never to have a reliable translation of the 
scriptures, and must we forever appeal to the Greek in 
discussions before a popular assembly ? I am willing to 
risk this question on either of the translations before us. 
Mr. Campbell translates this passage almost verbatim as 
it is in the common version. He makes the adjective 
jmeumatika qualify the noun rendered wickedness. 

Having given you a definition of the word death accord- 
ing to Webster, I will now give his definition of the word 
life. u Life — in a general sense, is that state of animals 
and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural 
functions and motions are performed, or in which its 
organs are capable of performing their functions." 

True, Dr. Webster has given the various applications 
and uses of the term, philosophical, theological, civil, and 
metaphorical, as adopted and allowed by the popular 
writers and speakers of the English language ; but with 
these uses and applications of the word, we have but little 



8TATE OF TI1E DEAD. 39 

to do. In many instances they are fanciful and unwar- 
rantable. There are properly but two uses of words — 
the literal and figurative, and it is thus that we must 
employ them in studying the Holy Scriptures. The con- 
text and nature of the subject, and other circumstances, 
will always suggest to the reader when he should abandon 
the literal and adopt the figurative meaning of a word. 
It, is necessary to remark, however, that words when used 
in a purely literal sense, often have various significations ; 
that is to say, primary, secondary, tertiary, &c. They 
are applied to various things. This can always be ascer- 
tained by their usus loauendi in the Bible. 

In support of this view, I beg leave to introduce an 
authority of great weight and respectability, especially 
with the party with whom my friend is identified. I 
allude to Alexander Campbell. He speaks thus in his 
preface to the Gospels, in his new translation, sixth edition, 
page 11 : "The reader will please consider, when God 
spoke to man, he adopted the language of man. To the 
forefathers of the Jewish nation he spoke in their mother 
tongue. By his Son, and his Son by the Apostles, he spoke 
to every nation in its own language. When he spoke to 
any nation, he uniformly adopted the words of that nation, 
in expressing his will to it. And that he used their words 
in the commonly received sense, needs no other proof than 
this, that if he had not done so, instead of enlightening 
them in the knowledge of his will, he would have deceived 
and confounded them : than which no hypothesis is more 
impious. For example, were God to speak to us in Englis7i, 
and select from our vocabulary the word death, punish- 
ment, perpetual, and wicked; were he to use the last term 
as we use it, and annex to the others a signification differ- 
ent from that we affix to them, such as to mean life by the 



40 DEBATE OX THE 

term death, happiness, by the term 'punishment, and a lim- 
ited tune by the word perpetual ; and. without apprising us 
jf such a change in their meaning, say, " Perpetual death 
shall he the punishment of the wicked," what a deception 
would he have practiced upon us ! " I heartily subscribe to 
these views, and insist that, as reformers, you started with 
them, you shall abide by them now. 

Allow me now to give you the orthodox definition of the 
term spirit, which will serve to exhibit the vast difference 
between that sense of the term, and its primary and literal 
signification. It is as follows : '* The spirit is simple, 
uncompounded, immaterial, indivisible, indissoluble, indis- 
tructible, intangible, without exterior or interior surface ; 
is not extended, and can never come in contact with mat- 
ter. That the spirit, from its essential nature, is immortal 
and independent of the body, and, therefore, that it can 
exercise the functions of life, of the understanding, affec- 
tions, and will, without the concurrence of the body, and 
does indeed perform these functions while the body is 
mouldering in the dust. That the spirit is in a state of 
conscious enjoyment or suffering between death and the 
resurrection — the good going to paradise, or heaven, 
where Christ is, and the wicked to hell. That the resur- 
rection refers only to the body, the spirit having never 
died. That the wicked, as well as the righteous, from the 
necessity of their own immortal natures, will never die." 

After this highly philosophical definition of spirit, allow 
me, my friends, to give you the various meanings of the 
term as it occurs in the Bible. 1st. Its first and primary 
signification is breath, air, wind in motion, in which sense 
it should always be construed, if the context will permit. 
2. The vital principle, or animal life. 3. Thoughts, affec- 
tions, temper, or disposition of mind. 4. It is used for 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 41 

the mind of man. 5. It is used for one's self, periphras- 
tically. 6. In a few instances it is used synonymously 
with person. Now, I here affirm that, in every instance 
in which it occurs in the Bible, it is in one of these senses. 
Numerous passages of scripture might be quoted illus- 
trative of these diversified meanings of the term, but I 
shall not consume time in reading them unless my oppo- 
nent calls this statement in question. Should he do so, 
they shall be forthcoming. [Time out.'] 



MR. CONNELLY'S THIRD SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : — 

It would be well before we advance further, to 
review the ground over which we have already gone, that 
we may ascertain what we have gained. First, then, it is 
conceded by the brother that, at death, there is a separation 
between the body and the spirit ; and, secondly, that per- 
sonality is attributed to the spirit in the scriptures. Thus 
far we are agreed. And thus, as I humbly conceive, two- 
thirds of the whole propositon is established and conceded. 
But the brother says he did not intend to concede that 
personality is applied to the spirits of dead men. I have 
no idea that he desired to make the concession. But he 
will be utterly unable to extricate himself from it unless 
he can show some authority for calling that spirit which 
has no spirit. We have asked for this several times 
already, and as he passed it by in silence, we again ask 



42 DEBATE OX THE 

where is the authority for applying the term spirit to the 
body from which the spirit has departed ? Will it be 
forthcoming ? "We will see. 

We will turn our attention again, for a few moments, 
to definitions. My friend has been pleased to favor us 
with what he calls the orthdox definition of the term spirit, 
as a contrast with the true primary meaning. But he 
does not tell us from what orthodox author he gets it. 
We would say to the brother, however, once for all, that 
we are responsible for no definitions but our own, and that 
we regard nothing as orthodox in definitions, that does not 
agree with the standard authorities. He next gives us 
some five or six definitions of spirit, claiming the authority 
of the Bible, which we will now examine. First, wind, 
air in motion, hence breath. In this sense, he insists we 
should always use the term when it will possibly do. But 
Webster says "this sense is unusual." Here the doctors 
are at issue. Again, we need only substitute the word 
breath in the various scriptures we have cited, to see what 
utter nonsense it would make. Second, life or the vital 
principle. With reference to this definition I remark, 
that Webster gives no such definition! He defines spirit 
by] life only in the sense of resemblance. His fifteenth 
definition reads thus : life or strength of resemblance. But 
to see how ridiculously absurd Dr. F.'s definitions are, and 
how confused are his thoughts upon the whole subject, let 
us substitute the definition of life quoted by himself, from 
Dr. Webster, in those scriptures where he supposes it has 
that meaning. Luke viii, 5b : And her state of animals 
and plants, in which its natural functions and motions are 
performed, came again, and she rose straightway ! Eccl. : 
" Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and 
the state of animals and plants, or organized being, in 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 43 

which its natural functions and motions are performed, shall 
return unto God who gave it." Luke xxiii, 46 : " Father, 
into thy hands I commend my state of animals and plants, 
or organized being, in which its natural functions and 
motions are performed.' ' Could any thing be more absurd ! 
And so we might show with all the rest, but you are 
doubtless satisfied, my friends, with this specimen. Third, 
" It is used for the mind of man." This definition affords 
him no assistance, as it only removes the difficulty one 
step further back. For mind, as we shall show hereafter, 
is an essential property of the spirit. Fourth, That the 
term is sometimes used for temper or disposition of mind, is 
not disputed. But this again only shifts the difficulty. 
Fifth, It is used for one's self periphrastically. Sixth, For 
persons. This is what we have been endeavoring to show, 
and as it is applied to the dead, as we have before shown, 
it must be to the spirits of men separated from the body, 
and hence only proves what my friend says he did not 
intend to concede. But more of this hereafter. 

But let us consult Dr. Webster a little further, and see 
if we are without any authority for our definition of spirit. 
His fifth definition reads thus : u The soul of man ; the 
intelligent, immaterial, and immortal part of human 
beings." And cites Eccl. xii, 7 : " The spirit shall return 
unto God who gave it." Sixth definition, " An immate- 
rial, intelligent substance." Seventh, "An immaterial 
intelligent being." And cites 1 Pet. iii, 19 : " By which he 
went and preached to the spirits in prison." You can now 
see, my friends, whether the standard authorities are with 
me or my opponent. 

We will next call your attention to Dr. Webster's defi- 
tion of the verb die. I cannot account for brother Field's 
reading so much of the learned doctor's definition as he 



44 DEBATE ON THE 

did, and his stopping where he did, on any other ground 
than that he felt assured it was against him. For he read 
every thing but that he should have read. Die — " To be 
deprived of the circulation of the blood, and other bodily 
functions, as animals, either by natural decay, by disease, 
or by violence ; to cease to live ; to expire ; to decease ; 
to perish. " Thus far he read, and thus far it relates to 
animals in general. But mark what follows; "and with 
respect to man, to depart from this world." This, you 
see, is the only clause in the definition applicable to the 
question in debate. Why, then, was it omitted. The 
gentleman has told you that we must take terms in their 
primary and natural signification, whenever we can do so, 
without violating good sense. With this rule I agree ; and 
insist that we shall abide by it. What then, I ask, is it 
that departs from this world when a man dies ? Is it his 
body ? Does that depart from the world ? No ; it returns 
to the earth as it was. Yet death is a departure from the 
world. If, then, the body remains in the world after death 
— and to die is to depart from the world, does it not follow 
that this departure must be predicated of something else 
than the body ? And of what else than the spirit can it 
be ? That leaves the body, as before shown and conceded, 
at death ; the body remains behind in the world ; hence 
the spirit is the being — the person^- that departs from 
this world. This, as I have before said, my friend admits. 
In commenting on the third chapter of 1st Peter, he 
informs us that the term spirits in this scripture is equiva- 
lent to ]>ersons. If so, then, it follows that that something 
which has departed from the world is the person; and as 
it cannot be the body, which we have shown does not leave 
the world at death, it must be the spirit — the immaterial^ 
intelligent part of those antediluvians. 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 45 

Our attention is again called to Eph. vi, 12. He informs 
us that spiritual here qualifies wickedness. It is made to 
do so in the King's version, I know, but it does not in the 
original. Pnuematika is of the neuter gender, accusative 
case, plural number, and hence cannot qualify ponerias* 
which is of the feminine gender, singular number, and 
genitive case, without violating some of the plainest rules 
of the language. Hence we do not, as the gentleman 
asserts, make an adjective bestow personality upon a 
noun ; but simply show that an adjective is here used for 
a noun, as Greenfield states on this passage, and, as we 
have already shown, is the case with Rom. ii, 4, and 2 Cor. 
viii, 8, to which we might add many other similar cases. 

The gentleman seems to regret exceedingly that an 
appeal should be made to the Greek. Does he mean by 
this to endorse the common version as correct ? It would 
seem so — he says it will suit him very well ; and then we 
have Mr. Campbell's version, with which he is well pleased, 
and asks, with some astonishment, shall we never have a 
reliable version ? Shall we never have any thing settled ? 
That that is a mere appeal, "ad captandum," for effect, 
to prejudice your minds against a fair investigation, is 
evident from the fact that the translation of the text does 
not please him, and hence this appeal to Campbell's ver- 
sion. Had he not better appeal at once to the original ? 
Why does he not, instead of such " ad captandum " 
appeals, show that my criticisms are not correct ? 

It follows, then, as we have shown, that the spirit is 
separated from the body at death, and that personality is 
applied in the scriptures to spirits thus separated ; that 
spirits exist after death, distinct from the body. 

We shall proceed, then, in the third place, to show that 
consciousness or intelligence is an attribute of the spirit. 



46 DEBATE ON THE 

Iii support of this position we cite Matt, xxvi, 41, " Watch 
and pray, that ye enter not into temptation ; the spirit 
indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." A plain distinc- 
tion is made in this scripture between flesh and spirit. 
And an unmistakable recognition of intelligence as belong- 
ing to the spirit. Again, Luke i, 46, "And Mary said, 
My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath 
rejoiced in God my Saviour." That the term spirit does 
include the body and soul is evident from the fact that the 
term soul occurs in the same sentence. But I quote this 
scripture merely to prove consciousness of the spirit, 
which it clearly shows. 

To the same effect is Romans i, 9, "For God is my 
witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his 
son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in 
my prayers." Here the Apostle regards the spirit as that 
with which he served God, or as that which serves God, 
and it must, therefore, be intelligent and conscious. Again, 
1 Cor. ii, 11, '-What man knoweth the things of a man, 
save the spirit of man which is in him ; even so the 
things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God." 
In this passage the Apostle declares that the spirit of man, 
resident in the body, is the intelligent knowing principle ; 
yea, more, the only intelligent principle — no man but the 
spirit knows the things of man. Just as no man knows 
the things of God but the Spirit of God. I regard this 
passage as conclusive. And had I no other proof to this 
point, I might rest the question here in the fullest assu- 
rance of success. To say spirit here means mind, affects 
not my argument, as I have shown it removes the difficulty 
only one step back, unless it can be shown that the mind 
is not inherent in the spirit. Hence the gentleman may 
call it mind, or whatever else he pleases ; it is the only 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 47 

conscious, knowing principle in man, and it is distinct from 
the body — and the Apostle calls it the spirit. And 
besides this, intelligence is never attributed to the body. 
Again, 1 Cor. xiv, 14, "For if I pray in an unknown 
tongue my * spirit prayeth, but my understanding is 
unfruitful." In this scripture, the Apostle regards the 
spirit as praying, and, therefore, as intelligent and con- 
scious. The thought before the Apostle's miiid we under- 
stand to be simply this. If lie prayed in a language that 
was not understood by those who heard him, it could 
communicate no knowledge to the hearer, though his own 
spirit being engaged in prayer, might profit by it. Again, 
Gal. v, 17, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the 
spirit against the flesh, so that ye cannot do the things that 
ye would." Here, again, a clear distinction is made 
between the flesh and spirit. They are placed in distinct 
contrast with each other, and their different tendencies 
pointed out. I now call attention to Phil, i, 21. But 
before I read, that I may fix your mind on the point in 
the text, I ask leave to submit the following question: 
Who is the " I " of whom the Apostle speaks, as living in 
the flesh ? But let us read, "For to me to live is Christ, 
and to die gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit 
of my labor : yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I 
am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and 
be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless, to 
abide in the flesh is more needful for you. And having 
this confidence, I know that I shall abide, and continue 
with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith : that 
your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for 
me by my coming to you again." Here the Apostle 
speaks of an intellectual, intelligent identity — personality 
— that may either reside in the flesh or depart out of it. 



48 DEBATE ON THE 

And further, his language evidently shows that to abide 
in the flesh was to remain with the brethren ; and, conse- 
quently, to depart from the flesh was to leave them — to 
be absent from them. Now, if this intellectual identity 
is not the spirit, there is no meaning in the passage. This 
text, then, embraces my whole proposition — the separa- 
tion, personality, and consciousness — all. The argument 
from this text I regard as irrefragable, and one my friend 
will never be able to refute. The same fact is taught in 
Job xix, 26, "And though after my skin worms destroy 
this body, yet in my flesh I shall see God." Here, again, 
an intellectuality — personality is regarded as residing in 
the flesh, which is unquestionably the spirit. 
[ Time out.] 



DR. FIELD'S THIRD REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends : 

My friend seems to attach considerable importance 
to certain concessions which he says I have made. Now, 
suppose, I have conceded that there is a separation of 
body and spirit at death, does it hence follow that the 
spirit after death is a living, intelligent, personality ? 
Certainly not. If it will help his cause any I will also 
concede that at death there is a separation between the 
body and the sight, hearing, its vitality, its sensibility, — 
does it follow that they are personalities too ? 

I have said that in some instances the word spirit is 
synonymous with the word person. Now for the proof. 
" Beloved believe not every spirit, (person) but try the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 40 

spirits (persons) whether tlieyareof God : because many- 
false prophets are gone out into the world — every spirit 
(person) that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the 
flesh is of God : and every spirit (person) that confesseth 
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God." 
1 John iv. 1-3. In this passage it is evident that the 
false prophets who had gone out into the world were 
called spirits. We often use the word in a similar sense 
in our common parlance. Such expressions as " turbu- 
lent spirit," "refractory spirit," "restless spirit," and 
"ambitious spirit," are of frequent occurrence. But I 
will give you another example of the import of this word 
in the scriptures : "Now we beseech you, brethren, by 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering 
together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind or 
be troubled, neither by spirit (person) nor by word, nor 
by letter as from us as that the day of Christ is at hand." 
1 Thess. ii, 1, 2. The apostle cautioned the church of 
Thessalonica not to believe what certain persons might 
teach on the exciting subject to which he referred. 

In this sense of the word spirit, personality is predicable 
of it. So of the word soul, which in a number of instances 
means person. I presume my friend will not deny that 
dead bodies are sometimes called souls. For example: — 
"Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (dead body in the 
grave) neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see 
corruption." See Ps. xvi, 10. There is a pretty general 
agreement among commentators that this is the sense of 
this passage. My friend has admitted that living persons 
are called spirits. Now, the question is, do the scriptures 
furnish any authority for calling dead people spirits ? If 
they do, then the difficulty about the "spirits in prison " 
vanishes at once. Bear it in mind my friends, that I 
have adduced examples of the use of the word spirit in 



50 DEBATE ON THE 

the sense of person — a living person. My friend assumes 
that spirit can be predicated only of personality. Then, 
it follows, that whatever is a personality may be called a 
spirit. Is, then, a dead man, or a dead body if you 
please, ever spoken of in the Bible or treated as a 
personality? Let us see. In the 11th chapter of John 
we have an account of the raising of Lazarus after he had 
been dead four days. When our Lord approached the 
dwelling of his bereaved sisters he asked "Where have 
ye laid HIM ? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. 
Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, behold how he loved 
HIM. And some of them said, could not this man, who 
opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even 
THIS MAN should not have died? John xi, 34-37. 
Here we have an illustration of the personality of a dead 
man — that part of him too which lies in the grave. 
Though a mass of putrefaction, he is still called a man. 
What will my opponent say to this ? But again : Acts 
ii, 29, " Men and brethren let me freely speak unto you 
of the patriarch David, that HE is both dead and buried, 
and HIS sepulchre is with us unto this day." David 
himself, not a fart of him, is here said to be dead and 
buried — in HIS tomb at Jerusalem. Many other examples 
might be given going to show that dead bodies, just as 
we see them after the breath has left them, are personated 
by all the personal pronouns in our language. Even in 
the very first chapter of the Bible we are told that Adam 
was a man before he was endowed with vitality. After 
lie was formed God breathed into HIS nostrils the breath 
of life and MAN (mark the expression) became a living 
soul or living person. So it seems he was really and 
truly man before he drew his first breath or saw the 
light. According to the doctrine of my opponent, Adam 
was no man at all until the breath of life was imparted 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 5] 

to him, at which time the man proper entered the body ! 
Neither was Lazarus in the grave, but in the heavenly 
regions perhaps : hence if his doctrine be true our Lord 
should have said " Where have you laid his body *' ? 

' These points being established, we are better prepared 
to examine minutely my friend's proof texts with regard 
to the spirits in prison and also in the heavenly regions. 
1 Peter 3, 18-20, " For Christ also hath once suffered for 
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to 
God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by 
the spirit — by which also he went and preached unto 
the spirits in prison ; which sometime were disobedient, 
when once the lon^-suffering of God waited in the 
days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, 
this is, eight souls, were saved by water." These spirits, 
my friend says, are the disembodied spirits of the antedi- 
luvians. Then they cannot be the wicked spirits mentioned 
in Eph. vi, 12, with whom the Apostle wrestled, for they 
are, according to my friend, in the heavenly regions-— 
going at large. There is something here I wish him to 
notice particularly. Spirits in prison cannot annoy the 
living — they cannot be flying about in the air — or 
engaged in pugilistic contests with men in the flesh. But 
who are these spirits in prison ? In order to decide this 
question, let us look at another passage in this epistle of 
Peter. In the next chapter he says : " Who shall give 
account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the 
dead. For, for this cause was the gospel preached also 
to them that are dead, that they might be judged 
according to men in the flesh, but live according to God 
in the spirit." 1 Pet. iv, 5, 6. This is acknowledged by 
commentators to be a text of considerable ambiguity. But 
Avhatever may be its meaning, it certainly does not mean 
that the class of persons referred to are now living. 



52 DEBATE OX THE 

On the contrary, the Apostle asserts that they are dead. 
They were dead when he wrote ; but they had heard the 
gospel in their life- time. When ? In the days of Noah. 
There cannot, I think, be a rational doubt that these dead 
persons are the antediluvians who resisted the preaching 
of God's Spirit through Noah. And when we take into 
consideration the fact that the inspired writers use words 
with great latitude, there is nothing absurd in supposing 
the phrase " spirits in prison " to mean dead men in tlieir 
graves. I say this is neither absurd nor unnatural. I 
have shown that dead men are personalities ; and that 
the word spirit is used in scripture in the sense of person. 
Hence there is no difficultv in reconciling the text with the 
unconscious sleep of the dead. 

Let us now examine Eph. vi, 12. My friend is deter- 
mined to draw us into the Greek. He is not satisfied with 
either the common version or Mr. Campbell's, so far as 
this text is concerned. Neither of them exactly favor his 
theory. Very well. If we must appeal to the Greek, let 
us have the Greek without addition or modification. 
Before we end this discussion, he will find the Greek fatal 
to his cause. What if I admit the correctness of his 
criticism ? Will it prove his point ? Suppose that " ta 
'pncumatika tes ponerias en tois epouraniois" is properly 
translated "wicked spirits in the heavenly regions" — 
how does this rendering tally with his doctrine ? Does 
he not teach that the disembodied spirits of wicked men, 
aye, and of saints too, are in hades ? Are they not, 
according to his faith, down in the earth — in a sort of 
prison ? How, then, can they be in the heavenly regions ? 
Is hades above as well as below the earth ? It is a little 
strange that these wicked spirits have so much liberty — 
seeing they are in prison. It would seem that they had 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 53 

liberty to roam over the earth and to obstruct the ministry 
of the gospel. Paul had to contend with them as well as 
the rulers of this world. Upon the hypothesis that my 
friend is correct in his critique on this passage, it is a 
little singular that it is not so rendered by Mr. Campbell, 
in his new translation. 

The phrase " ta pneumatika tes ponerias" is literally 
the spiritual of wickedness. Pneumatika being an adjec- 
tive, qualifies some noun understood. What noun is 
the most suitable and most in accordance with the sense 
of the original, is a question for translators. You may 
supply the sense by the noun things if you please, or any 
other noun of the neuter gender ; because as my friend 
has shown pneumatika is of the neuter gender, plural 
number. Of course, then, the noun understood should 
be neuter gender also. For the adjective being of the 
neuter gender cannot qualify a noun in the femenine, such 
as ponerias. You see then, my friends, into what difficul- 
ties he involves himself by an appeal to the Greek. The 
adjective does not and cannot qualify a personality at all, 
and the translators of the King's version well knew it. 
So did Mr. Campbell, and, therefore, his rendering is the 
same as theirs with a slight difference. Mr. Campbell 
uses the word "regions" and the King's translators the 
word "places" as the noun understood and qualified by 
the adjective epouraniois — neither of which are in the 
original. As already remarked, the sense must be inferred 
by the translator, and the noun most in harmony with the 
subject should be selected. 

There is a fact in connection with the matter that should 
be borne in mind, that words in all languages are often 
used in a figurative sense. Heaven being above us 
naturally enough suggests to the mind the idea of height 



64 



DEBATE ON THE 



or elevation, hence the rendering in our common version 
of epouraniois — high places. But, waiving this consid- 
eration, there are some parallel passages that will aid us 
in coming at the meaning of the text before us. I shall 
quote, first, Eph. i, 3, "Blessed be the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all 
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ — culogia 
jmewnatikc en tois epouraniois Christo — in the original. 
Here, then, is a passage illustrative of what is meant by 
heavenly places — church places, privileges, membership, 
communion and such like are evidently meant. But, lest 
this should not be satisfactory, I will give you another — 
see Eph. ii, 6, " And hath raised us up together, and made 
us sit together in heavenly places (tow epouraniois) in Christ 
Jesus." I would remark that the Kind's version and Mr. 
Campbell's coincide perfectly in the translation of these 
texts. There is as good reason for rendering the word 
epouraniois in these instances by the words u heavenly 
regions," as for the rendering in Eph. vi, 12. But the 
translators well knew that it would not do to make the 
Apostle say what is not true — thai ice arc sitting together 
in the air or above the clouds ! But suppose, for the sake 
of the argument, I should admit that ta pneumatika tes 
poncrias means wicked spirits, what would he gain by it ? 
Nothing at all. I have proved, and he has conceded, that 
spirit is sometimes used in scripture to signify a person, a 
man in this life. There would be no difficulty, then, in 
explaining this passage to mean wicked persons in the 
Church — in such places as ice are said to occupy. The 
Apostles not only contended with human governments, 
and wicked rulers in the State, but with dishonest and 
hypocritical men in the Church — in its offices and places 
of trust. 



STATE OF TUE DEAD. 55 

To prove the personality of the spirit after death, my 
friend quoted in his first speech Heb. i, 7. I must confess 
that I am somewhat surprised, that one professing to be 
a Greek scholar should introduce this scripture for such 
a purpose. A correct rendering of the original will show 
how irrelevant this text is to the matter under discussion. 
It is as follows: "Whereas concerning the angels, he 
says, who makes winds his angels (messengers) and 
flaming fire his ministers." 

My friend asks me to state from what author I obtained 
what I called an orthodox definition of spirit. In reply 
I would remark, that although it is not found in any lexi- 
cographer, yet it is the metaphysical and popular under- 
standing of the word. Such are the ideas attached to it 
by the philosophers of the day. Will my opponent deny 
that I have fairly stated the orthodox faith in regard to 
its nature and properties ? I think not. 

He has tried to make one of my definitions of spirit 
appear very ridiculous, but when the fact is noticed, that 
it is not the definition, but one of the definitions of the 
defining word that he has held up to ridicule, the fallacy 
will be easily detected. One of my definitions of spirit, 
is life in its common acceptation ; not in all its different 
significations. Apply this meaning to it in the passages 
he quoted to exemplify its absurdity, and see if it is not 
appropriate. Luke viii, 55: "And her spirit (or life) 
came again and she arose straightway." Is there any 
thing absurd in this ? Again : Ecc. xii, 7 : " Then shall 
the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (life) 
return unto God who gave it," Luke xxiii, 46 : "Father, 
into thy hands I commend my spirit" (life.) Of like im- 
port is the language of Stephen. Paul says, we are dead, 
and our life is hid with Christ in God. There is nothing 



56 DEBATE O.N" THE 

more natural than that a dying saint should commend his 
life to God, who has promised to restore it in the resur- 
rection, henceforth to continue forever. 

My friend complains that I did not read all of Webster's 
definition of death ; but omitted the very part which 
should have been read. Before we proceed any further 
in this discussion I must make a remark or two in regard 
to lexicographers, whose definitions my friend seems to 
regard as infallible. As etymologists or philologists they 
may be trusted ; but when they undertake to give you 
the various conventional meaning of words among the 
popular writers of the day, orators, poets, theologians, and 
philosophers they cannot be depended on. Words, in 
the lapse of time, change their meaning; and therefore 
the necessity of recurring to their history in order to 
ascertain in what sense they were originally employed. 
This, my friend knows, is the proper way to arrive at the 
primary and biblical meaning of words. The Bible is a 
book of great antiquity, and it will not do to settle its 
doctrine by the loose and latitudinous meaning of words 
as defined in our modern dictionaries. The' right way, 
my friends, is to trace the word through the scriptures, 
and ascertain its usus loquendi, or the use the inspired 
writers made of it. This is a reliable mode of coming at 
the mind of the Holy Spirit. It is making the Bible 
explain itself — just what my friend and his party once 
said ought to be done. [Here the doctor read from 
Webster's definitions of the word spirit, immateriality, die, 
<fec, showing thereby that even Mr. Connelly would 
reject some of his definitions.] 

I now proceed to notice his quotations, to prove the 
consciousness and intelligence of the spirit. We wish 
you to notice, however, that these scriptures one and all 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 57 

are as silent as the grave in relation to the consciousness 
of the spirit after death. They apply to the living, and 
if they teach any thing at all in regard to consciousness, 
it is while the spirit is in union with the body. Man is a 
compound being. He possesses an intellectual, physical, 
and moral nature. He has a body, soul and spirit, which 
the Apostle prays may all "be preserved blameless to 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." See 1 Thess. v, 
23. Now, the simple question is, do any of these 
constituents of his organism survive death and continue 
conscious and intelligent? Has my friend quoted a 
single passage of scripture explicitly affirming such a 
doctrine ? He has not. And it must now be apparent 
to you all, that he does not expect to prove it by direct 
evidence ; but by mere inference ! Many passages are 
pressed into his service in no wise pertinent to the subject 
in debate, and by a forced construction, if not perversion, 
made to favor his views. Is this one of the boasted 
achievements of " this reformation." After all said and 
done against the sects, for inferring their doctrines, has it 
come to this, that the "reformers" are compelled to do 
the same ? So it seems. 

It is not requisite that I should notice all the passages 
my friend quoted, but only two or three by way of 
showing how utterly futile and baseless must be a doctrine 
that has to be inferred from such authority. The first 
I shall notice is Phil, i, 21-23, — "For to me to live is 
Christ, and to die is gain. For if I live in the flesh, this 
is the fruit of my labor ; yet what I shall choose I know 
not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire 
to depart, and be with Christ which is far better." My 
friend wishes to know who is the "I" in the text. 
Suppose I admit that it is Paul — what then ? Why 



68 DEBATE ON THE 

that the personal pronouns apply to the man proper and 
not to a part of him or an attribute of his nature. This 
is what I maintain and it corroborates my argument on 
the personality of the body after death. To illustrate 
this point I will quote another of my friend's texts. 
Luke 1, 45: " And Mary said MY soul doth magnify 
the Lord, and MY spirit hath rejoiced in God my 
Saviour." In return I ask who is the my in the text? 
Mary, of course. Here, then, is a personal pronoun in the 
possessive case, standing for the name of the possessor. 
The things possessed are the soul and spirit. So, then, 
the soul and the spirit cannot be Mary. My friend saw 
this difficulty, and provided against it by saying that the 
term spirit includes the body and soul. This is all 
assumption, my friends, but suppose we admit it, — what 
is the conclusion ? Why that as Paul meant his spirit 
when he used the pronoun I — for that my friend says is 
the man proper — therefore, when he desired to depart, 
he must have expected to take body and soul with him ! 
Not very bad logic after all — inasmuch as it proves that 
the whole man, spirit, soul and body, goes to heaven at 
the same time. 

But again: 1 Cor. ii, 11, "For what man knows the 
things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him ? 
even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit 
of God." 

Here you perceive that my friend is met by the same 
difficulty. The spirit of man is said to be in HIM — that 
is, in the man. How, then, can the spirit be the man, 
and how can it comprehend the soul and body ? Now 
look at the analogy. Is the Spirit of God different from 
God, and could it exist consciously and intelligently 
separate from God ? I speak with due reverence — if it 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 



were possible for God to die — could his Spirit survive ? 
Thus you see, my friends, that the scriptures quoted by 
my friend are against him when critically examined. 
[ Time out,'] 



Mr. CONNELLY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow- Citizens : 

I regret that my friend seems so much confused. 
For if you have been able to determine the point in his 
reasoning, your powers of discrimination, are better than 
mine. 

We will, however, review his speech, before we 
advance, and see if we can understand it. If you will 
accompany me, you will, perhaps, be compensated, if by 
nothing else, by the discovery of a very peculiar species 
of reasoning, to which, the brother is evidently indebted, 
for his singular conclusions. He asks, if his concession, 
that there is a separation of body and spirit at death, 
proves the spirit to be a living, intelligent personality 
after death. In answer to this we remarked, that it 
proves just what the scriptures, which we have quoted 
on that point, proves : that there is a separation of body 
and spirit ; that they are entirely distinct ; and that their 
tendencies and destinies are also distinct. 

Mark then, my friends, that this point is gained ; and 
you will see how beautifully it harmonizes with his next 
position. 

He next shows, by repeating some of my proof texts, 
what I had before shown, and what he had conceded, 
that personality is predicated of the spirit. Perceiving, 



CO DEBATE ON THE 

however, that this truth, which he has so reluctantly, 
though justly admitted, is fatal to his whole scheme, as 
well as to his entire system of faith, he endeavors to 
escape its force, by an attempt, so absurd that it borders 
on the ridiculous, to show that the body, though a mass 
of 'putrefaction, is the spirit ! ! According to his logic, 
the body is the spirit, and the spirit is the body, they are 
separated at death ; and yet they do not separate at all 
— but all becomes a mass of putrefaction together ! How 
intelligent, how clear, what argument can resist such a 
conclusion ! But seriously, is it not a matter of grief, my 
friends, that a man possessing the powers for usefulness, 
that are accredited to Dr. Field, should suffer himself to 
be led into such absurdities, by a system which seeks to 
degrade man, who was made a little lower than the 
angels, to a level with the brute ? 

But his reasonings are not less singular than his 
conclusions. He represents me as assuming that spirit, 
is only predicated of personality. (Which is the very 
reverse of my position.) And then concludes, that 
whatever is a personality may be called a spirit. He 
then asks, "is a dead man or a dead body, spoken of in 
the Bible, or treated of as a personality ? " And then 
reads the conversation of the Saviour, with Mary and 
Martha, concerning Lazarus, placing great stress on the 
word him; he also reads Acts ii, 29, emphasizing the 
words he and his, with all his strength ; and triumphantly 
asserts, that many other examples might be given, going 
to show, that dead bodies just as we see them, after the 
breath has left them, are personated by all the personal 
pronouns in the language ! 

The fact then that personal pronouns are used with 
reference to the bodies of dead men, is incontrovertible 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 61 

evidence to his mind, that they are persons. Can you 
believe, my friends, that Dr. Field, the champion of 
unconsciousness, claiming to be a classical scholar, is 
sincere in making this argument ? If so, what may a 
lifeless system of unconsciousness, not lead a man to do ? 
But does he suppose, that this community, and those 
who may afterwards read this discussion, are so illiterate 
that they will not be able to detect its absurdity ? 

His argument is this, that what the personal pronouns 
apply to, are personalities, that the personal pronouns 
are applied to the bodies of dead men, therefore they are 
persons. Let us try this argument a little further. 
The personal pronouns are used for the names of animals 
of every description, in the scriptures as well as in all 
other writings, consequently, according to the Doctor, all 
animals are persons ! This proves what I before asserted, 
that his system degrades man to a level with the brute — 
makes him only an order of beasts. But worse still. 
The personal pronouns are used for the names of things 
inanimate, as well as for the names of men and beasts. 
Therefore, all inanimate things are persons ! And as he 
affirms, that, whatever is a personality may be called a 
spirit ; consequently all inanimate things are spirits. 
Hence the Doctor's horse is a greater spirit than the 
Doctor himself, being larger ; and for the same reason, 
his house is a greater spirit still. This, my friends is 
surely too spiritual, if not for the Doctor, at least for this 
age. And this, ridiculously absurd, as it is, as the sequel 
will show, is the legitimate result of his theory — that all 
is matter. I would here ask the Doctor if God is matter ? 

For the sake of those who are not acquainted with the 
use of personal pronouns, I will make a few remarks, 
before I dismiss the Doctor's argument. The word noun, 



62 DEBATE ON THE 

is a name applied to a class of words, which includes the 
names of all things, whether animate or inanimate. Per- 
sons, as used by grammarians, shows the relation of the 
noun or pronoun to what is said in discourse, that is, it 
shows whether the noun or pronoun is represented as the 
speaker, the spoken to, or spoken of. The word pronoun, 
as its composition indicates, includes a class of words, 
which stand for nouns, to prevent the too frequent use 
of the same word, five of which by their form show the 
person of the nouns for which they stand, and are for 
that reason called personal pronouns. They do not then 
show that the nouns for which they stand, possess the 
attributes of personality ; that must be learned from other 
considerations. They simply show whether the nouns 
is the speaker, the spoken to or spoken of, and hence the 
Doctor's assumption that the bodies of dead men are 
persons, and therefore spirits is without any authority 
under the broad canopy. 

We will next examine the definitions of the words, 
personality and person. Webster, with whom all the 
authorities in the language that I have seen, agree, 
defines the word personality thus, that which constitutes 
an individual a distinct person. Person he defines thus : 
" an individual human being possessed of body and soul." 
This evidently applies to human beings before death. 
But he ads " we apply the term to living beings only, 
possessed of rational nature. A body, when dead is not 
called a person ! " So the Doctor's position, that dead 
bodies are persons, outrages both common sense and 
language. For where there is no rationality there is no 
personality. Again, Webster quotes from Locke, the 
following which applies directly to the point before us, — 
"A person is a thinking, intelligent being." 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 63 

Hence, when it is conceded that personality is predi* 
cated of the spirit, my whole proposition is virtually 
conceded. 

Having laid the foundation in the bundle of absurdities, 
which we have just exposed, he has at length, given us 
the meaning of the phrase, spirits in prison. He says, 
it means " dead men in their graves" that is, dead bodies. 
for in his view man is all body. But what evidence does 
he give that this is the meaning of phrase ? Hear it, 
oh ! ye incredulous, and no longer resist its force. He 
says " There is nothing absurd in supposing it ! " But 
why this supposition ? *' The inspired writers used words 
with great latitude ! " To a mind under the influence of 
such logic, what could be unnatural or absurd ! He 
quotes the fifth and sixth verses of the fourth chapter, to 
prove, the antediluvians are dead ! But why this effort 
does any one deny it? 

Does the fact that they are dead aid him in any way ? 
Not in the least ; unless he can show what his argument 
assumes, that to die is to lose conscious existence. This 
however he has not done, nor can he show it, if his own 
existence depended upon it. You cannot fail to perceive, 
that his main objections to my position have their foun- 
dation in appropriating unauthorized meanings to words, 
and I doubt not that his discussion will clearly demon- 
strate that his entire system is sustained by the same 
means ; and he intimates that the inspired writers pur- 
sued a similar course, for he says, they "used words with 
great latitude !" What could a man not prove, having 
this license. 

I have defined death to be a separation of body and 
spirit. Now the question is, is this definition correct ? is 
it sustained by the authority ? If it is, then his objections 



.64 DEBATE OX THE 

with his whole theory fail, if not, then my proposition is 
not true. To the law then, and to the testimony, for if 
we speak not according to these, there is no light in us. 

Webster says, to die is " with respect to man, to depart 
from this world." Now apply this definition of this 
standard authority, to the antediluvians — "the spirits 
in prison," and my position follows beyond all question. 
They all died — .departed from this world, not their 
bodies, for they returned to the dust as they were — but 
the spirit, which returned to God who gave it. We 
would again ask the brother for some authority, for 
calling that spirit from which the spirit has fled. But 
the doctor thinks the lexicons are not to be depended 
upon. I knew he would dread these authorities, although 
he appealed to them this morning with so much emphasis, 
as " standard authorities." But why has his confidence 
so failed in them this afternoon ? Simply, because they 
are against him. It is the business of lexicographers to 
give the accredited meanings of words in the times and 
places for which they write, and that they have done so 
with the words now in dispute, my friend dares not 
deny ; hence, if these words do correctly represent the 
original terms, the meanings of these words, as given by 
the lexicons, are the true ones ; the context and circum- 
stances determining which definition is to be preferred. I 
am unable, however, to please the brother. When I 
appeal to the lexicons, they are unsafe, and when I 
appeal to the original, then I ought to take the transla- 
tions as they are. In this, however, I am not disappointed, 
for he evidently came here predetermined not to be 
pleased. But let us see if my definition is not sustained 
by the scriptural use of the word. Re-examine, then, 
those scriptures cited to prove a separation of body and 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 66 

spirit at death, in connection with the following language 
of Peter : " Knowing that shortly I must put off this, my 
tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed 
me. Moreover, I will endeavor that after my decease, 
that you may always have these things in remembrance." 
2 Pet. i, 14, 15. Nothing is plainer, I think, than that 
the apostle here uses the term decease, which is but 
another term for death, and the phrase put off this my 
tabernacle, as representatives of the same thought. Conse- 
quently, death with him is a putting off the oody — a 
separation of body and spirit — my definition precisely. 

Our attention is again called to Eph. vi, 12. He says, 
I am determined to draw him into the Greek. He dreads 
the Greek, and he dreads the English, and I should not 
be surprised if he should dread his own positions before 
the discussion closes. 

But why this cant about the Greek, and Mr. Camp- 
bell's translation in one breath, and about an appeal to 
the original, in the next ? Does he intend to indorse the 
common version and Mr. Campbell's both ? I would ask 
what reason have the king's translators or Mr. Campbell 
given for their rendering of the phrase in dispute? or what 
reason has the doctor given in his defence of it ? None 
whatever. Yet we dare not depart from it, because the 
king's translators, Mr. Campbell, and Dr. Field have all 
so decreed. We will presume, notwithstanding, to prefer 
the rendering given by Macknight and others, for the 
reasons given in a former speech, which I need not now 
repeat. 

But then he asks, if the correctness of my criticism be 

admitted, that the phrase means "wicked spirits in the 

heavenly regions," how does this rendering tally with my 

doctrine ? I answer precisely; and that when we need the 

6 



C6 DEBATE ON THE 

doctor's aid in expounding our doctrine we will call for it. 
We would remark, however, that we understand the word 
hades to mean the unseen state without any reference to 
up or down, hence his difficulties exist only in his imagi- 
nation. But notwithstanding all his Greek lore, it seems 
that he cannot yet understand that I do not make pncu- 
matika qualify ponerias, but render it as a noun ; hence 
his difficulties exist again in his own Greek learning. 

Were it not for the strange things the doctor has already 
developed, we should be somewhat surprised at his course, 
with regard to this text. He admits all we introduced this 
text to prove, and then labors with all his might to show 
that it does not prove what he has admitted. Hence fail- 
ing to set asside my position on the phrase penumatika 
ponerias, he endeavors to show, that epouranois means 
the church, and for this purpose he cites Eph. i, 3, and ii, 6. 
His argument then, is this, that the same word should 
always be supplied after this adjective, and thus virtually 
affirms that this adjective can qualify but one noun, let the 
context be what it may. Hence he thinks that if it means 
church or church privileges in these two scriptures, it 
must therefore mean the same in Eph. sixth chapter; the 
inconsistency of this argument, will appear if we examine 
the various connections where this word is found. A 
single example may suffice for the present, Eph. iii, 10: 
"To the intent, that now unto the principalities and powers 
in (epouranois) heavenly places might be known by the 
churchy the manifold wisdom of God." The word church 
or church privileges could not be supplied here, because 
by the church the wisdom of God is to be known unto those 
in the heavenly regions. So in the sixth chapter the con- 
text will not allow the church to be supplied nor men in 
the flesh to be meant. For flesh and blood, and those 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 67 

" wicked spirits" are placed by the apostle in clear con- 
trast with each other. Will the doctor please inform us 
what there is in the Greek text of Heb. i, 7, that requires 
pneumata to be rendered winds ? 

He admits that his orthodox definition of spirit, is not 
in the lexicons. Strange that all the lexicographers should 
omit the popular orthodox meaning of the word ! 

He complains that I ridiculed one of his definitions of 
spirit ; he told us that one of Webster's definitions of spirit 
was life, the vital principle ; and then read us what he 
called the common acceptation of life; which as I showed 
makes nonsense of those scriptures where he substitutes 
life for spirit. But I again demand some evidence that the 
word spirit means life in its common import ? What 
author has ever so used the word. I deny that it has any 
such meaning in the language; hence he has no right to 
substitute it for spirit, unless he can show from some 
reputable author that it is so used, or that these scriptures 
are incorrectly rendered ; and should he do this, it would 
not help him any. For what is life ? It is the opposite of 
death, which I have shown is a separation of spirit and 
body. Consequently life is a state where these are 
united. This agrees with the definition of Webster, cor- 
roborated by all the authorities of the language. He says 
"in man that state of being in which soul and body are 
united; ". this substituted for spirit, will be no less ridicu- 
lous than the other. Life and death then are not qualities, 
as the theory of the doctor assumes, but simply modes of 
being. We will now return to our argument. 

We had just quoted Phil, i, 21-25, and asked what that 
is, that might depart from, or remain in the body, if not the 
spirit, the intelligent, conscious part of man. To which the 
doctor thus replies : " Suppose I admit that it is Paul, what 



68 DEBATE 0>, r THE 

then ? why that the personal pre/nouns apply to the man 
proper, and not to a part of him or an attribute of his 
nature." Will he inform us what he means by an "attribute 
of his nature ? " His position then stands thus, the personal 
pronoun stands for " the man proper;" the man proper is 
Paul, and Paul is the body ; for he says "this is what he 
maintains, and that it corroborates his argument on the 
personality of the body after death, (a clear concession 
that he believes man is all body). Hence the doctor thinks 
that when Paul departed from the body he took the body 
with him ! How can such logic and philosophy be resisted ! 
But he is still greatly troubled with personal pronouns. 
He knows of no way by which personality can be distin- 
guished but by their use; and how could he when he knows 
of no distinguishing characteristics of person. I hope, 
however, that my remarks on the use of these pronouns 
will be of some use to him. To which I will now make 
an additional observation. The pronouns, as well as the 
nouns for which they stand, sometimes apply to the whole 
being in its present organized state ; while by the use of 
other terms the writers show the nature and use of the 
distinct parts ; note Luke i, 45 ; 1 Cor. ii, 1 1 ; 2 Pet. i, 14 ; 
which have already been quoted, as examples. This fact 
will at once remove all the difficulties, the doctor has 
labored so hard to involve them in, and will also show their 
relevancy to the question in debate ; the doctor's declaration 
to the contrary notwithstanding. For in these scriptures, 
the inspired writers have shown, that the body is merely 
the tabernacle or dwelling place of the spirit and that the 
spirit is the intellectual intelligent part. Hence where- 
ever intelligence is found we know the spirit is alluded to. 
With these facts before us, we will call your attention 
again to Phil, i, 21-23. Here are three things clearly pre- 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 69 

sented : first, something to depart from, which is the flesh 
or body ; second, something to be present with when away 
from the body — that is the Lord ; third, something to 
be thus present and absent at the same time ; that is 
evidently the spirit, and alike intelligent and conscious 
whether in or out of the body. Consequently a clear proof 
of my proposition. 

To the same effect is the following scripture : " For in 
this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with 
our house which is from heaven ! If so, that being 
clothed we shall not be found naked. 

"For we that are in this tabernacle do groan being 
burdened : not for that we would be unclothed but 
clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of 
life. Now he that hath wrought us for the self-same 
thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of 
the spirit. 

** Therefore we are always confident, knowing that 
whilst we are at home in the body, Ave are absent from 
the Lord: (For we walk by faith not by sight.) We 
are confident I say, and willing rather to be absent from 
the body and to be present with the Lord. 

" Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent 
we may be accepted of him." [ Time out.~\ 



70 DEBATE ON THE 



Dr. FIELD'S FOURTH REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends — 

I wish you to remember that I am the respondent 
in this discussion, and am under obligation, by polemic 
rules, to follow the affirmant, in his course of argumen- 
tation. He has undertaken to prove a certain proposition, 
and my business is to test the soundness of his arguments. 
Logically speaking I have nothing to prove myself, but 
rather to disprove what my friend may adduce in support 
of his doctrine. There is, therefore, no propriety in his 
calling my views — "philosophy" I did not come here, 
my friends, to build up or defend any system of philoso- 
phy, moral or natural ; but to see that my friend does 
not make void the word of God by his traditions. If 
there is any thing in the range of our conceptions, entitled 
to the name of philosophy ', it is a theory of human nature 
unknown to scripture. As I have repeatedly said, no 
" thus saith the Lord " can be produced for the doctrine 
advocated by my friend. He is arguing a question 
outside of the Divine Record. It is truly an untaught 
question; hence, it must be sustained by inferential 
reasoning, and not by positive declarations of scripture. 

I do not, as my friend has stated, reject the authority 
of dictionaries, and dispute all the definitions which 
conflict with my views. By no means. He misunder- 
stands me on this point. 1 have said, and I here repeat 
it, that as philologists or etymologists, the student of the 
Bible may depend on them. They are authority, but not 
to the extent that my friend supposes. If I wish to, 
ascertain the modern import of a word, as settled by the 



STATE 0¥ THE DEAD. 71 

popular writers of the day, conventional agreement, or 
custom, I appeal to lexicographers. In such cases, and 
for such purposes, they are trust-worthy. But in a 
theological discussion, when it becomes necessary to 
ascertain the meaning of a word, two or three thousand 
years ago, we cannot rely on our English dictionaries. 
The word must be traced through the Bible, and its 
meaning decided by the context, and various other 
circumstances connected with its use. 

It is admitted by my friend that it is a common practice 
to speak of dead men as dead persons. So it is, and it is 
this common practice that obtains in the Bible, which 
speaks of things just as ice speak of them. If it is a 
common practice noiv, why may it not have been so then ? 
But we are again reminded that Dr. Webster is against 
this use of the word. This is unfortunate, but still it 
does not follow that the writers of the New Testament 
were as restricted and punctilious in the use of words as 
Dr. Webster. He asks me where I find in the Bible an 
example of a dead body being called a person. I might 
answer this question by asking another. Where in the 
Bible does my friend find an example for calling the 
spirit of a dead man a, person ? I have showed that dead 
men are addressed as persons — all the personal pronouns 
are applied to them — more than can be said of the 
spirit — either before or after its separation from the 
body. Take the case of Jairus' daughter, to which my 
friend has referred. Luke viii, 55, "And her spirit 
came again, and she arose straightway." Here this maid 
while dead is personated by the appropriate pronouns ; 
but not so of her spirit. That is not mentioned as a 
personality at all ; but as something different from her. 
If this is not proving that dead bodies are personalities, 



i% DEBATE OX THE 

then there is no meaning in the words her and she. At 
all events it proves that the spirit was not the maid — 
neither her nor she. 

I do not see how my friend could have inferred from 
anything said by me, that I consider the common version 
faultless. That it is imperfect no scholar will deny. 
But that every item of Christian faith may be deduced 
from it, is acknowledged by all sects and parties. True, 
there are many inaccuracies in the translation, but in the 
main it is correct and reliable. So far as the present 
controversy is concerned, it is sufficiently plain and 
perspicuous. If, however, my friend, Mr. Connelly, is not 
willing to risk his cause on it, let him take Mr. Campbell's 
new translation. In the discussion of the question before 
us, our appeals are mostly to New Testament authority, 
and I should suppose that he would greatly prefer this 
translation to the common version. 

But we are told that Paul did not wrestle with flesh 
and blood ; hence, I am mistaken in supposing that wicked 
spirits in high places, were bad men in the church ; 
because, says my friend, men in the church are flesh and 
blood ! This apparant difficulty is easily solved. The 
apostle alluded no doubt to the Grecian games, from 
which he drew the illustration. The Christian warfare 
is not carnal or fleshly — it is not a bodily or physical 
contest in which we are engaged — but a moral contest. 
On the side of the gospel was arrayed the apostles and 
all the saints throughout the world. On the side of the 
opposition, the civil rulers and powers of this world, and 
even wicked men in the most elevated and important 
places in the Church. All this is plain and intelligible 
to one not biased by a " spiritual system " at war with 
the simplicity of the gospel. Principalities, earthly 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 73 

powers or governments, the ignorant and benighted 
Pajran rulers of this world and wicked men in the church 
are all in the same category, and were terrestial in their 
nature and location. 

Our attention is again called to Phil, i, 21-24. This is 
one of the strongest passages in the Bible in support of 
my friend's doctrine. It should, therefore, be carefully 
examined. In morals as well as physics, if a well 
ascertained fact contradicts a theory it must be false. 
Suppose for example that I were to frame a theory of the 
earth, and teach that it is a plane — instead of a spheroid, 
and from its edges the waters on its surface rolled off in 
a vast cataract. I might reason very plausibly in support 
of this theory, and even make converts to it. But 
suppose the fact is discovered that the earth has been 
circumnavigated — what would my theory be worth? 
Just so in morals or religion, if one passage of scripture 
positively and unequivocally contradicts a theory it is 
false and worthless. Let us then look at a few facts 
which must be harmonized with my friend's interpretation 
of the text under consideration. First — It must be har- 
monized with a well known fact in the typical institutions 
of the Jewish religion. The high priest of the Jewish 
nation, once a year went into the most holy place with 
the blood of the offering, and made an atonement for the 
people. The subordinate priests officiated in the first 
tabernacle, but never entered the second. Neither priests 
nor people were permitted to enter its sacred precincts. 
But into this second tabernacle went the high priest not 
without blood which he offered for himself and the errors 
of the people. See Hebrews ix, 2-7. While the &jgh 
priest was within the second vail — in the holiest of all, 
the Jewish congregation stood without waiting for his 



74 DEBATE ON THE 

return. He was required to be properly attired before 
approaching the mercy seat. After having performed his 
sacerdotal functions, he came out of the most holy place, 
and blessed the waiting congregation of Israel. Now, 
carry out the analogy in the antitype. Jesus Christ is 
the high priest of the Christian congregation. He has 
gone into the most holy place of the true tabernacle — 
into heaven itself to appear in the presence of God for us. 
Paul speaks of us as " waiting for the Lord from heaven." 
A member of the great Christian conqreofation can no 
more go where he now is, than a member of the Jewish 
congregation could approach the high priest while within 
the second vail in the performance of his duty. Here, 
then, is the first difficulty in the way of the popular 
mistake that we go to heaven at death. The old Jewish 
tabernacle with all its accompaniments, priesthood, 
worship, &c, was " a pattern of things in the heavens " — 
a figure of the true tabernacle ; and while Christ continues 
a high priest within the vail, we cannot personally 
approach him. I invoke the special attention of my 
friend, Mr. Connelly, to this fact. 

Secondly — It is positively declared by our blessed 
Lord himself, that "no man hath ascended up to heaven 
but the only begotten Son of God, who came down from 
heaven." Again, he said to his disciples before his 
death, that whither he went they could not come, that 
so far from their going to him at or before death, he 
assured them as the ground of their comfort, that he 
would come again to them. That his absence was neces- 
sary that he might prepare a place for them, and come 
again and take them to himself. In the second chapter of 
the Acts, Peter stated that David had not ascended into 
the heavens, but was there in his sepulchre at Jerusalem. 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 75 

Thirdly — God has highly exalted his Son, and set him 
at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all 
principalities, thrones and dominions. See Eph. i, 20, 
23. In 1 Tim.vi, 16, "That God only hath immortality, 
dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto ; 
whom no man hath seen nor can see." 

Fourthly — Our Lord himself says, Rev. iii, 21, "To 
him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my 
throne as I also overcame, and am set down with my 
Father in his throne. " Notice the fact, my friends, that 
Christ is seated on his Father's throne, not on his own. 
The saint cannot, then, hope to be 'personally with him 
while he continues in that relation to his Father. 

Here, then, are four facts presenting, as I conceive, 
insuperable obstacles in the way of my friend's theory. 
I hope he will meet and dispose of them scripturally and 
logically. If he do not, all his expositions of other 
parts of scripture, not explicitly affirming the doctrine of 
his proposition, must be regarded as erroneous, and that 
they admit of an interpretation in unison with these 
facts. Having premised these things, let us now analyze 
this controverted text. In the first place, let it be noted 
that the apostle does not affirm that death would be gain 
to him. Secondly — He does not say that he expected to 
be present with the Lord immediately on his demise ; and 
Thirdly — He says nothing about his spirit at all. And 
certainly a cause must be hard pressed for support, when 
it has to depend on proof texts, in which the thing to be 
proved, is not even mentioned ! There is another fact 
worthy of notice in connection with this subject, and that 
is, that Paul represents himself as being in a strait — 
undecided as to which would be preferable, to depart and 
be with the Lord or abide with the brethren. Now, if 



76 DEBATE ON THE 

death was gain to him, in that it placed him immediately 
with Christ, then it would seem that there would have 
been no hesitancy, or indecision in the case. To under- 
stand what the apostle meant by his death being gain, 
we should read the whole chapter, and especially from 
the twelfth to the twentieth verse, from which you will 
learn, my friends, that his death would have been gain 
to the cause of Christ. He was willing either by life or 
death to magnify Christy or to promote his cause. I 
would further remark that such expressions as " present 
with the Lord," do not necessarily mean a personal 
presence with him. We are told that " we are buried 
with Christ in baptism wherein also we are risen with 
him." Col. ii, 12. We are also said to "suffer with 
him," to be dead with him, <fcc. Now, I presume, no 
one will argue that there is a personal proximity in these 
cases. Is it necessary with those idiomatic examples 
before us, to give an interpretation to Paul's language 
contradictory of well established facts and his general 
tcachino- ? We should take care that we do not in our 
interpretation of the word of God make an isolated text 
clash with others so plain as to be unmistakable. For 
instance: the apostle Paul teaches, that without a 
resurrection of the dead " then all who have fallen asleep 
in Christ are perished." This would not be the case if 
there is in man an immortal, intelligent and an imperish- 
able spirit, which at death ascends to dwell personally 
with Christ. Again, he asserts, that it was no advantage 
to him to suffer for the religion of Christ, if there be no 
resurrection. Upon my friend's principles, there would 
be an advantage in it, whether the body was raised from 
the dead or not. If the spirit can exist consciously and 
happily without the body, where is the necessity for its 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 77 

resurrection ? Will my friend tell us ? Of the same 
import is the teaching of Paul in the eighth chapter of 
Romans. He there speaks of himself and co-operantsin 
the ministry as " groaning for the adoption, to wit, the 
redemption of their bodies." In view of the event he 
says, "We are saved by hope." Here it is evident that 
Paul did not expect to be with Christ personally or to 
receive his reward until the resurrection. So I teach, and 
so many of the most pious people in this country believe. 
There are a few points yet to be noticed in my friend's 
last speech. He has given you an explanation of the 
pronouns. He tells us they are applied to the inferior 
animals, and even to inanimate objects as well as man. 
This is exactly what I have contended for, and this fact has 
been strenuously avoided by him. By figure of speed), 
which we call personification, things without life are made 
to speak. Trees, hills, floods, dead people, Abel's blood, 
and a host of other objects, are personified as possessing 
life and intelligence. Pronouns like the nouns for which 
they stand, have all these qualities, gender, number, 
case, and person. The personal pronouns are applied to 
living beings generally. Whether or not it is proper to 
ascribe personality to beasts, depends, according to my 
friend's logic, on the question as to their rational nature. 
But one thing is certain, and it deserves particular notice, 
and that is, that after death, the personal pronouns of the 
masculine and feminine genders, are still applied to both 
men and women. Now, if the body is not the man 
proper — dead, or in a state of suspended animation, and 
if the man is really gone from this world to another, the 
body ought to be denoted by ^pronoun in the neuter gender. 
Instead of that, however, they are still used in reference 
to Lazarus, David, and others, as though they were 



78 DEBATE ON THE 

living. We are told that David is both dead and buried. 
See the second chapter of Acts. The personal pronouns 
are still applied to these dead men as though they were 
alive. This is all I contend for and this being true, there 
is nothing strange or absurd in speaking of dead men as 
personalities. And as I have shown, the word spirit and 
soul are both used in the sense of person, or the man as 
we see him, the difficulties with regard to " the spirits in 
prison " are easily solved. 

He says the application of the personal pronouns to 
dead bodies is no proof of their personality. Will he tell 
us, then, what it does prove ? 

While such expressions as the following abound in the 
scriptures, my argument based on the use of personal 
pronouns, cannot be refuted by a resort to the grammati- 
cal rules governing them. Another sample or two of 
these expressions and I will dismiss this part of the 
subject. In the eighth chapter of Acts, we read that 
"devout men carried Stephen (not his remains) to his 
burial." The angel told the women, who visited the 
sepulchre, that Jesus was not there, that he had risen, 
and then requested them to come and see the place where 
the Lord lay. This is enough to show that my view of 
this matter is perfectly tenable. 

My friend manifests considerable surprise at the remark 
that the inspired writers used words with great latitude. 
He is the first man I ever heard deny it. I do not say, 
nor did I mean to say, that they used words in a contra- 
dictory sense, but in various senses. The same word in 
the Bible often has several meanings. This is all I 
meant, and it cannot be denied. 

For the purpose of proving that epourainois, translated 
heavenly places, means something more than church 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 79 

places. Eph. iii, 10, Las been quoted ; let us read it : 
" To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers 
in heavenly places, might be known by the church the 
manifold wisdom of God." In Alexander Campbell's new 
translation, the word " principalities " is rendered govern- 
ments. The context of this passage will throw light on 
the apostle's meaning. In the seventh and eighth verses 
he speaks of his mission to the Gentiles, and says that 
the object of his preaching was "to make all men see 
what is the fellowship of the mystery " namely, the 
calling of the Gentiles to the fellowship of the gospel. 
Then comes the text under consideration. Now, notice 
my friends, that these governments and powers are to be 
taught by the church, the manifold wisdom of God. They 
unquestionably have some connection with the church 
here. If they are located in the air or region above us, 
what have they to do with the church, and how can they 
be instructed by it ? But now the question presents 
itself, are these governments, and powers in the church 
to be benefited by its teaching ? That they are, I think 
you will see by reading I Cor. xii, 28 : "And God hath 
sent some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, 
thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, 
(power to work miracles and heal,) helps, governments, 
diversities of tongues." 

The principal difficulty in this interpretation, is the 
word heavenly. I cannot perceive why the church may 
not be called a heavenly institution. 

My friend inquires what I mean by an attribute of 
Paul's nature. I answer, qualities that belong to or are 
peculiar to his organization, such as wisdom, intelligence, 
memory, love, &c. 

He says, that I assume that man is all body. In 



80 DEBATE ON THE 

reply to this, I remark that while man lives, he is so 
constituted that his material organization, eliminates 
mind, thought, reason, and all other mental manifestations. 
When dead, however, all these developments cease. He 
is then all matter. As the Psalmist says, " his breath 
goeth forth in that very day, his thoughts perish." 
Ps. 146. 

He charges me with degrading man to the level of the 
brute. Not all of them by any means. Many men, 
however, are not much wiser, and multitudes more 
vicious and degraded than the inferior animals. Peter 
called certain men in his day, "natural brute beasts made 
to be taken and destroyed, and shall utterly perish in 
their own corruption.' ' How does my friend like this ? 

[ Time out.] 






STATE OF THE DEAD 81 



Second Day, 
Saturday morning r , 10 o'clock. 



Mr. CONNELLY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 

After the usual preliminary exercises, Mr. Connelly 
rose and said : 
Brethren and Fellow- Citizens : 

Through the kind providence of our heavenly Father, 
we have been permitted, after a night's rest, to meet again 
for the purpose of resuming our investigation of the ques- 
tion now under discussion, and before I proceed in the 
prosecution of my argument, allow me to solicit your 
patient and prayerful attention to such matters as shall 
be submitted to your reflection. It is for each and every 
individual in this large and respectable audience to decide 
for himself, on which side of the question in debate, the 
truth lies. It is your duty to ponder the evidence, and 
say whether one of the most consoling articles of our 
faith, is a mere conceit or a delusion, as my opponent 
would have us believe, or whether it is one of the items 
of revealed truth. 

There is but little in my friend's last speech that I need 
notice, except what will be fully answered as we advance 
with our argument. We will, therefore, proceed and 
notice his difficulties and objections, as we go along. 

We concluded our last speech by a quotation from 2 
Cor. v, corroborating our argument on Phil, i, 21, 22. 
You cannot, my friends, fail to perceive that the apostle 
has the same train of reflections before his mind in this 



82 DEBATE ON THE 

passage, that he had, in that quoted from the first of 
Philippians. 

Here he regards the body as the home, the dwelling 
place of the saints, and that while they remained in the 
body, they were absent from the Lord. He also declares 
his preference to be absent from the body and present 
with the Lord. The same three things, then, are pre- 
sented here that we have seen recognized in Phil, i, 21, 
22, and in the same conditions ; viz : the body — the 
Lord, and the something that lives in the body here, — 
which leaves the body when present with the Lord. 
What is that something that may thus live in the body 
or out of it, if not the intelligent, immaterial part of 
man — the spirit, which as we have shown, leaves the 
body at death ? These scriptures can admit of no other 
interpretation consistent with the context, than that I 
have given them. If the doctor has another we will 
expect him to shed some light on the subject. Here, then, 
are facts, not mere inferences which prove my proposition 
in defiance of all effort to evade their force. 

The doctor has spent a large portion of his speech in 
arraying what he regards facts insuparable according to 
my interpretation ; which he asks me to dispose of 
scripturally and logically. Well, if I show that his facts, 
when admitted, do not militate against my interpretation 
of these scriptures, or the theory for which I contend, 
they will be answered sufficiently scriptural, and logical. 

What then, are his facts, and what do they teach. 
First. As the Jewish institution* were types of the 
Christian, and as Christ has entered the holiest of all — 
has gone into heaven itself, a member of the great 
Christian congregation can no more go where he now is, 
than could a member of the Jewish congregation approach 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 83 

the high priest while within the second vail. This the 
doctor says " is the first difficulty in the way of the 
popular mistake that we go to heaven at death. " 

Secondly. That " it is positively declared by our 
blessed Lord himself, that no man hath ascended up into 
heaven, but the only begotten Son who came down from 
heaven ; and that Christ said to his disciples that he 
would come again and take them to himself. ,, The 
third and fourth facts are of similar import. 

What then do these facts prove ? That man is not 
admitted to his final reward until after the resurrection. 
This I heartily believe, and consequently admit. But 
how this conflicts with my proposition, I confess I am 
not able to perceive. The question is not whether man 
goes to his final reward as soon as he dies, but that the 
spirit remains in a conscious state, separate from the 
body until the resurrection. Will the doctor be so good 
then as to show us how the fact that man is not rewarded 
until the Lord comes, proves that there is no intermediate 
state ©f consciousness : or that the saints are in no sense 
in the presence of the Lord, until they are received into 
those heavenly mansions ? 

This array of facts is only an attempt to draw us off 
from the question in debate, in which he shall not succeed. 

But, again, he calls upon us to note that " Paul does 
not say that death will be gain to Mm?' Well, what if 
he does not say so, does that prove that he did not 
expect to depart from the body, and be with Christ at 
death ? But he does say " to die is gain." To whom, I 
would ask ; not to the saints ; for he says it would be more 
needful for them, that he should remain in the flesh ? To 
whom then is it gain, if not to Paul ? But again, the 
doctor says, we should note that Paul " does not say 



84 DEBATE ON THE 

that he expected to be with the Lord immediately on his 
demise." Does lie then take the position that Paul did 
not expect to be with the Lord until the resurrection ? 
If this is not his position, there is no point in his array 
of facts, and the emphasis placed on immediately. Well, 
let us note the doctor's positions on this text, and try his 
skill at reconciling difficulties. He says Paul is the body, 
and that he will not be with the Lord, until the resurrec- 
tion ; and then body, soul and spirit, will go to heaven 
together. Now we wish the doctor to solve two difficul- 
ties for us, growing out of these positions. First — If 
man is all body, how can he consist of soul, body, and 
spirit? or are the soul and spirit parts of the body ? and 
if so, what parts of the body are they ? Second — If soul, 
body, and spirit are present with the Lord together, how 
could Paul be absent from the body when 'present with the 
Lord. For if there is any meaning in language, the 
apostle teaches that, when present with the Lord, in the 
sense of these texts, he expected to be absent from the 
body. Hence, unless the doctor can harmonize these 
contradictions, his positions are contrary to the scriptures, 
and these texts left with all their force in favor of my 
proposition. But he says the apostle says nothing about 
the spirit at all ; and concludes that a cause must be hard 
pressed, when it depends for evidence, upon texts, where 
the thing to be proved is not mentioned. But is this 
true ? Not at all. As will be evident when we remember 
that the spirit as I have shown, is the only intelligent 
part of man, which the doctor has not denied ; and that 
here is an intelligent rational identity, which may reside 
either in or out of the body. Hence, though the name 
is not given, the thing is so perfectly described, that it 
cannot be mistaken. For if this is not the spirit, will the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 85 

doctor please tell us what it is. I am sure, my friends, 
that you all would be edified, as well as myself with the 
information. 

To the same effect as the texts quoted from Phil, and 
2 Cor. fifth chapter, is the following, found in the twelfth 
chapter of 2 Cor. beginning at the second verse : "I knew 
a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the 
body or out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth;) 
such a one caught up to the third heaven.' ' We need 
only remark, that this text is inexplicable on any other 
hypothesis than that, for which I contend. If the 
apostle had understood that man is all body, as does my 
friend, there can be no meaning in his words at all. 

I will now introduce a few texts where the term soul 
is used. But before I read them, I will remark that the 
term soul as also the original word of which it is a 
translation, has three distinct meanings in the scriptures. 
It sometimes means the person as in this life ; it some- 
times means life — ■ animal life — this is its general sense, 
and in a few texts it means the intelligent immaterial 
part — and is in this sense synonomous with spirit — 
hence the fact that the word has other meanings than 
that attached to it in these texts, is no evidence that the 
sense in which we use it is incorrect, unless it can be 
shown that the meaning we attach to it will not agree with 
the context. We make these remarks here to prevent 
any unnecessary dispute with regard to this word, so that 
we may come at once to the texts to which your attention 
is now called. We will first read Matt, x, 28 : " And 
fear not them which kill the body, but are not able 
to kill the soul : but rather fear him which is able to 
destroy both soul and body in hell." 

Language could not make a clearer distinction in any- 



86 DEBATE ON THE 

thing than is here made between body and soul. And 
as I conceive can only be made to harmonize with the 
position for which I contend. For if man is all body, as 
the doctor affirms, whoever could destroy the body could 
destroy the soul. Whereas the Saviour clearly shows 
that the soul survives the power of such as can only kill 
the body. 

"We will next call your attention to Rev. vi, 9-11 : 
" And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under 
the altar the souls of them that were slain, for the word 
of God, and for the testimony which they held : And they 
cried with a loud voice saying, How long Lord, holy 
and true, doest thou not judge and avenge our blood on 
them that dwell on the earth ? And white robes were 
given unto every one of them ; and it was said unto them 
that they should rest yet for a little season, until their 
fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be 
killed as they were should be fulfilled." 

The text is too clear and pointed for its force to be 
mistaken or evaded. It proves my proposition, not by 
mere inference, as the doctor would make you believe, but 
by positive declaration. For here we have those who 
had been slain whose souls after death are represented as 
distinct personalities, not by the personal pronouns , as the 
doctor represents personalities, but by the distinct per- 
sonal characteristics, — conscious intelligence manifested 
by crying to God, and asking intelligent questions and 
receiving replies from the Lord. We repeat, then, that 
language cannot be found more clearly declaring conscious 
intelligence after death and before the resurrection, and 
consequently in the intermediate state between death and 
the resurrection. But what meaning has the text accord- 
ing to the doctrine of my friend — that man is all body — 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 87 

that he becomes a mass of putrefadtion together, and has 
no more conscious existence. 

I will next call your attention to Luke xxiv, 38, 39. 
The language of our blessed Redeemer to his disciples 
who were much affrighted as the Lord appeared to them 
w r hile conversing about his resurrection, and supposed 
they saw a spirit. But let us read : " And he said unto 
them why are you troubled ? and why do thoughts arise 
in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it 
is I myself : handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not 
flesh, and bones, as ye see me have." This is a very 
important declaration not only because it comes from the 
Lord himself, but because it recognizes the existence of 
separate, disembodied spirits, not by inference, but by a 
plain statement of facts. 

This doctrine has been believed from the earliest 
ages — it was by nearly all in the days of the Saviour, 
and by the most learned and pious since that time — it 
was believed by the apostles, and clearly indorsed by the 
Saviour himself in the text now before us. For if there 
is no such thing as disembodied spirits, as the doctor 
affirms, would he not rather have said, Why are you 
troubled ? why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? there 
are no such things as spirits. But instead of doing this, he 
partially describes a spirit ; and thereby declares the 
existence of separate spirits. For can you believe my 
friends, that the Son of God would thus describe to his 
disciples that which does not exist ? Does Dr. Field 
believe that the meek and adorable Saviour, in whose 
mouth guile was never found — who sent his Holy Spirit 
to the apostles to guide them into all truth — would thus 
confirm them in error by describing that which does not 
exist ? I envy not his credulity who can so believe. 



8fc DEBATE OX THE 

1 perceive that I have but a minute or two more time. 
Hence I will not now introduce another text in proof of 
my proposition, but will employ the time in submitting to 
the doctor a few questions, to which we invoke his special 
attention. I hope he will answer them distinctly, without 
any equivocation ; of this, however, we will see. First, 
as a spirit has not flesh and bones, is it material or imma- 
terial ? Second, Are the angels who are all ministering 
spirits, material or immaterial ' ? Again, is God whom the 
scripture declares to be a spirit, material or immaterial! 
\T ime out.\ 






DR. FIELD'S FIFTH REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends — 

Every science has its technicalities, which are the 
appropriate signs of the ideas and principles embodied in 
it. Words are the currency of thought, and it is fair to 
presume that words and phrases not used in conveying a 
knowledge of a science or art, have no corresponding 
ideas therein. Just so with the Christian religion, the 
science of eternal life. It has its peculiar technicology, 
representing its great truths and principles. Words and 
phrases foreign to the record have no ideas corresponding 
to them in it. Now, if this be a correct criterion, where, 
let me ask, in the inspired writings, do we find such words 
and phrases, as "immortal soul, ,, "never-dying soul,'' 
" deathless spirit," " the death that never dies," " im- 
materiality," " conscious slate of the dead," &c ? They 
are not there, and hence, it is fair to presume that the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 89 

ideas attached to these philosophic terras are not there 
either. 

I shall commence my reply to my friend's last speech 
by noticing Matt, x, 28, and Rev. vi, 9-11. You will 
observe, my friends, that the word spirit is not mentioned 
in either of these texts. His proposition affirms nothing 
with regard to the soul. But if it is his wish to so 
modify it, as to make it embrace the soul, I certainly 
have no objection to it. From the circumstance of his 
introducing these scriptures, I suppose, as a matter of 
course, that he considers the spirit and soul one and the 
same thing. In his next speech I wish him to settle this 
matter. 

There are certain facts in connection with this passage 
in Matthew, which should be considered. First — It is 
declared in the text, that the soul is destructible. " God 
able is to destroy both soul and body in hell." This shows 
that the popular ideas of its nature are incorrect. 
Secondly — The word psuche rendered soul in the twenty- 
eighth verse, is, in the thirty-ninth verse twice translated 
by the English word life. Now, why is it that the 
translators made this difference ? There was as much 
propriety in translating the word psuche by the word life 
in the twenty-eighth verse as in the thirty-ninth. The 
truth is, my friends, the word means the same in both 
cases ; but the probability is that they were tinctured 
with my friend's views, and so translated the twenty- 
eighth verse as to favor the idea of an indwelling, immor- 
tal something in man, that survives the death of the body. 

I will give you what I consider a common sense 
interpretation of this text, which will harmonize it, not 
only with the thirty-ninth verse of that chapter, but 
with numerous other passages of scripture diametrically 



90 



DEBATE ON THE 



opposed to the common understanding of its meaning. 
Taking it for granted that the word psuche in the twenty- 
eighth verse means life, I would paraphrase it thus : " Fear 
not them that kill the body, or take away your present 
life, — but are not able to kill the soul, or the life to 
come, — but rather fear him who is able, after the resur- 
rection, to destroy both future life and body in hell/' 
That this is not a forced construction, is evident from the 
fact, that our Lord speaks of what God is able to do after 
the resurrection. For he speaks of the destruction of 
soul and body simultaneously ; and as the body cannot 
be destroyed until after it is raised from the dead, the 
conclusion is inevitable that our Lord had no idea of 
teaching any thing in regard to the intermediate state. 
The utmost that men can do is to deprive us of temporal 
life, after that they have no more that they can do, they 
cannot reach our eternal life, which God will bestow upon 
the martyred saint in the resurrection. But we are told 
to fear God who can make a final end of our being here 
and hereafter. But like all the other texts quoted by my 
friend, it says nothing about the consciousness of the 
spirit after death. It is not a " thus saith the Lord," for 
the doctrine of his proposition. 

Let us now take a look at Rev. vi, 9—1 1 , which reads 
as follows : "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I 
saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for 
the word of God, and for the testimony which they held ; 
and they cried with a loud voice, saying, how long, O 
Lord, holy and true, doth thou not judge and avenge our 
blood on them that dwell on the earth ? And white robes 
were given unto every one of them, and it was said unto 
them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until 
their fellow-servants also, and their brethren, that should 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 91 

be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." I shall not 
occupy your time in discoursing on the symbolic character 
of this book ; suffice it to say, that John had a prospective 
view of the history of the church, to the close of the 
gospel dispensation. Events were presented to his mind, 
centuries in the future, as though they were then 
transpiring. He had a series of visions and the imagery 
was in the highest degree glowing and impressive. Things 
animate and inanimate are made use of for purposes of 
illustration. Things having no life are introduced into 
the dramatic scenes of this sublime book, to instruct the 
reader in some historic truth. The seals under the 
opening of which certain occurrences took place, are 
symbols of the hidden providence of God. These seals 
cover the whole fortunes of the church to the coming of 
Christ. On opening the fifth, a scene of persecution and 
martyrdom is brought to view, and we are forcibly 
impressed with the cruelty and injustice of that period, 
by the crying of its victims for vengeance. A critical 
examination of the phraseology of this passage, will 
convince any one that it is what we call a figure of 
personification. Just as Abel's blood is personified and 
said to cry from the ground, so these martyrs are said to 
cry from under the altar. It is a common thing in 
scripture to attribute life and intelligence to inanimate 
objects. For instance, Hab. ii, 11; " For the stone 
shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber 
shall answer it." Also Isa. xiv, 8 : " Yea, the fir-trees 
rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, since 
thou art laid down no feller is come up against us." 
Many other texts might be quoted illustrative of this fact. 
But as I said a critical examination of this passage will 
show that it does not prove the doctrine advocated by my 



92 DEBATE 0>' THE 

friend, Mr. Connelly, These souls instead of being seen 
in heaven, were seen under the altar, in allusion to the 
Jewish altar, on which their sacrifices were offered. That 
you all know was in this world. To suppose these souls 
to be in heaven, is to suppose them unhappy there ; for 
they manifest impatience at the delay of God's retributive 
justice on their murderers. In God's presence there is 
fullness of joy. No matter how these souls were slain, if 
they went to heaven at death, as some people believe, and 
enjoyed its felicity, it is not at all likely that they would 
give themselves any concern about how they got there. 
Instead of invoking God's judgments upon their former 
enemies, they would forget them in the transporting 
rapture which would fill their minds. In this place, the 
word soul is used in the sense of person, and though dead 
they were made to speak by that well known figure of 
speech, called personification, just as " Abel being dead 
yet speaketh." See Heb. xi, 4. These same persons 
slain under the fifth seal are again seen in vision, rising 
from the dead at the commencement of the millennium. 
See Rev. xx, 4. John saw them reigning with Christ a 
thousand years, and says explicitly that they were "the 
souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus 
and the word of God." He calls this the first resurrec- 
tion. It could not have been a resurrection of the spirit 
or soul, in the sense in which my friend uses it, for that 
according to him never dies. It must then have been the 
body that was raised, or the person, another proof that 
dead bodies are souls or persons. 

My friend says that he does not maintain that Paul 
expected to go to the personal presence of Christ at 
death. This is certainly an important concession for him 
to make, seeing he laid such stress on the words "present 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 93 

with the Lord." He knows, my friends, that Paul could 
not go to the place where Christ is without falsifying the 
word of God. He must find some other meaning, then, 
for the expression, " absent from the body and present 
with the Lord." I want him to say, when he rises again, 
where Paul went at death ? Will he locate the spirits of 
the dead ? Tell us where they are ? 

At present, I can only briefly notice 2 Cor. v, 1: " For 
we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were 
dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made 
with hands, eternal in the heavens." This is a highly 
metaphorical expression, and ought never to be quoted to 
prove a doctrine that has no better evidence to rest on. 
A strict construction, such as my friend gives it, subverts 
the whole doctrine of the resurrection. For it would 
seem from this isolated verse, that the moment we die, 
we receive our spiritual body or our house from heaven. 
What then becomes of the body put off at death ? It 
cannot be needed, inasmuch as we have the one from 
heaven. But, my friends, there is no necessity for giving 
this passage such a construction as will contradict other 
texts, more intelligible and literal. Read the fourth 
verse, and you will see that Paul's ideas must have been 
different from my friend's. " For we that are in this 
tabernacle do groan, being burdened ; not for that we 
would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might 
be swallowed up of life" Here is the secret, after all. 
The apostle desired a change of nature, instead of death. 
He longed to be made immortal. He had no desire to be 
unclothed. Why ? Because he could not appear in 
the presence of the Lord in a disembodied state. But 
as I shall likely have to refer to this again, I dismiss it 
for the present. 



94 DEBATE ON THE 

I must now notice 2 Corinthians xii, 2, 4 : "I knew a 
man " says Paul " above fourteen years ago, (whether in 
the body I cannot tell, or whether out of the body I 
cannot tell, God knoweth ;) such an one caught up to the 
third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the 
body or out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth ;) how 
he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable 
words which it is not lawful for a man to utter." 

It, will be recollected, that my friend denned death to 
be a separation of body and spirit, or perhaps it was said 
to be the result of the separation. You see at once the 
difficulty into which he is involved. It is this: — If 
Paul's spirit left his body and went to paradise, then he 
must have died, and when it returned there was a 
resurrection ! ! Is there a man in this assembly so silly 
as to believe this ? I think not. There is another 
difficulty in his understanding of this vision, as Paul 
himself calls it. As already shown, it is impossible for 
any one to enter the third heaven or the place where 
Christ is. The reasons are obvious and they cannot be 
denied. Into that place, then, Paul could not have gone 
except in vision ; and that I apprehend is all he meant, 
saving that the vision or revelation was so made known 
to him that his bodily senses had nothing to do with it. 
John, while on the isle of Patmos was caught up to 
heaven, saw and heard marvellous things, some of which 
he was not allowed to write, but it was all in vision. No 
man will pretend to assert that John was taken up bodily 
or that his spirit for the time being left his body. 

I repeat again, that my friend admits that my facts 
prove, that man is not admitted to his final reward until 
the resurrection, but still he contends that between death 
and the resurrection the apostle Paul, and indeed all 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 95 

saints are with Christ in some sense. I want him to tell 
us in what sense they are with him, and where are they 
with him. I know that the question is not whether man 
goes to heaven or not at death, but as the Lord is in 
heaven, and no one can be personally present with him 
without being there, then if Paul is not there, of course 
he is not personally present with him. But we shall 
probably hear something which will enlighten us on this 
subject. 

He has asked several questions, some of a metaphysical 
character, such as, how a man can have a body, soul, 
and spirit if he is all body — whether the soul and spirit 
are parts of the body, and if so, what parts. Now, what 
have such questions to do with the proposition in debate ? 
I have not denied that man has a spirit or a soul, but 
whether they are parts of his body or something different 
from it has nothing to do with the question, — Do any of 
them continue alive and intelligent after they are separated 
by death ? 

Man is unquestionably a material being. He was made 
of the dust of the earth, and when he dies he returns to 
dust. Whatever may be said of his spirit, his life, his 
intelligence or what not, they are in the condition they 
were before he became "a living soul or person. Man, 
alive or dead, is just what we see him, no more nor less. 

He says he has shown that the spirit is the only intel- 
ligent part of man, and that I have not denied it. Well, 
suppose he has. Then I ask, does this part of man 
continue alive after the man himself is dead ? A part of 
a thing is always less than the whole — of course, the 
spirit of man being only a part of man, is less than the 
man himself ; hence, I teach that when man dies all his 
parts die. This is as true as that God made the world. 



96 DEBATE ON THE 

My friend has told you that the word soul has three 
distinct meanings — and in one of these meanings it is 
synonymous with the word spirit. Then this point is 
decided. 

He says that personality is not represented by the 
personal pronouns, but by distinct personal characteristics, 
such as crying to God, asking questions, and so forth. 
Then Abel's blood must have been a personality, for it 
cried to God from the ground. So of many other things 
inanimate, proving what I have before said, that the 
figure of speech called personification is of frequent use 
in scripture, and on that principle I explain some of my 
friend's proof texts. 

The fact that our Saviour said to his disciples, that a 
spirit had not flesh and bones as he had, no more proves 
that he indorsed the prevalent ideas in regard to spirits, 
than does the fact that he did not condemn the doctrine 
of a transmigration of souls, prove that he indorsed that 
doctrine also. The question was asked him with regard 
to a certain blind man, whether he sinned or his parents, 
that he was born blind. Here is an intimation of the 
existence of that superstition among them. They assumed 
that the man might have sinned before he was born ! 
This is perhaps a greater absurdity than some of their 
notions about spirits, yet our Lord did not set about 
correcting their mistake on the subject. 

That the doctrine is one of great antiquity will not be 
denied. It doubtless had its origin in the remote ages of 
Persian philosophy. It is to the Magian religion and 
not their own, that the Jews were indebted for their views 
respecting the soul, its pre-existence, transmigration, <fec. 
But what error is not ancient, and once of general belief? 
How long has it been since nearly all Christendom believed 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 97 

in transubstantiation, purgatory, the invocation of saints, 
infant baptism, and many other errors equally as absurd ? 
I am requested to say whether God and angels are 
material or immaterial. It is a matter of no importance 
to me to know or decide that question, seeing my friend 
considers substance a property of immateriality. Himself 
being judge, then God and angels have substance. It 
does not follow that because God is invisible, therefore, 
he is not materiality in some form which may very 
properly take the name of spirit. While in this state 
our bodies — material as we all admit — are said to be 
natural. After the resurrection they will be spiritual. 
Electricity is invisible, yet it is matter so highly attenu- 
ated as to pervade the most compact bodies. [ Time out.'] 



MR. CONNELLYS SIXTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow- Citizens — 

Before we advance, we will notice a few things in 
the doctor's former speeches which have been rather 
passed over. In his first speech in the afternoon on 
yesterday, he quoted the language of David, cited by the 
apostle Peter in the second chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles, " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor 
suffer thy Holy One to see corruption,' ' and says it 
means, "Thou wilt not leave my dead body in the 
grave," &c. This he supposes I will admit to be the 
correct meaning, and affirms that this is the meaning 
assigned to it by commentators generally. We must 
inform the gentleman that he is altogether mistaken in 



98 DEBATE ON THE 

his supposition — that we admit no such thing. And 
will the doctor name some reputable commentator that so 
understands this text ? But suppose the commentators 
have all given it this interpretation, what evidence has 
been given that it is correct ? What evidence has the 
doctor given, or what can he give that this is the true 
import of the text ? We would like for him to try his 
skill at least, or we must reject his interpretation. In 
order to prove the same point, viz : that there was nothing 
pertaining to the Saviour, the Son of God, but what was 
in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea while he was under 
the power of death, he quoted in his last speech yesterday- 
evening, Matt, xxviii, 5, 6, " And the angel answered 
and said unto the women, Fear not ye, for I know that 
ye seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here : for he 
is risen, as he said. Come, see the 'place where the Lord, 
lay," — emphasizing the phrase seethe place where the 
Lord lay, with great power. Thus arguing that, because 
the name is applied to the body, the Saviour was all flesh 
and all in the grave. For if this is not his position 
fairly stated, my mind is too obtuse to see any point in 
his reasoning, and I hope he will try to bring it to such 
a focus, that I may be able to get a view of it. We need 
only examine these texts together to see how utterly 
groundless and absurd his positions upon these scriptures 
are. And for this purpose we will again call your atten- 
tion to Acts ii, 25-31. We will first read the text and 
then call your attention to the particular points which we 
wish you to notice. And as this is an important text, we 
invoke your candid and earnest attention as we read : 
"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord 
always before my face ; for he is on my right hand, that 
I should not be moved : Therefore did my heart rejoice, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 99 

and my tongue was glad ; moreover also, my flesh shall 
rest in hope ; Because thou wilt not leave my soul in 
hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see cor- 
ruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life ; 
Thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 
Men and brethren, let me freely speak to you of the 
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his 
sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a 
prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath 
to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the 
flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, he 
seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, 
that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see 
corruption." We have read this, in order that you might 
see the argument of the apostle, which is, that David did 
not speak of himself, but being a prophet, and knowing 
that God had promised to raise up Christ, of the fruit of 
his loins according to the flesh ; and seeing this before, 
spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul was not 
left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. The first 
fact as set forth in this text, to which we invite your 
attention, is, that Christ was the seed of David only so far 
as the flesh is concerned. This, however, according to 
Dr. Field, was all of him ; but more of this directly. The 
Lord, our Saviour, had a spiritual nature, as well as the 
seed of David, as will be seen by the following remark 
from the apostle Paul, in Romans i, 3 : " Concerning his 
Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed 
of David according to the flesh ; and declared to be the 
Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of 
holiness," or, as rendered by Macknight, and indorsed by 
Mr. Campbell, to whose translation our attention has been 
so often called, and in perfect harmony with the original 



100 DEBATE OS THE 

text, " Descended from David as to his flesh, and consti- 
tuted the Son of God with power, as to his holy spiritual 
nature.'* Here is a spiritual nature distinct from the 
flesh, which was before Abraham, which was in the form 
of God, conscious and intelligent, glorified with the 
Father before the world was. This spiritual nature left 
the body at death, as the following will show : " And 
when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father 
into thy hands I commend my spirit.'* Luke xxiii, 46. 
And after the spirit had departed, the body was laid in 
the grave. Let us read the 52, 53 verses of the same 
chapter: "This man (meaning Joseph) went unto 
Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it 
down and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre 
that was hewn in a stone, wherein never man before was 
laid." Again, verse 55 : w And the women also which 
came with him from Gallilee, followed after and beheld 
the sepulchre, and how his body was laid." These 
scriptures need no comment, for if they do not teach that 
the spirit and the body of the Saviour were separated at 
death, and that the body only was laid in the grave, then 
language could not be so used as to express these 
thoughts. But let us return again to Acts ii. The 
Apostle as clearly distinguishes between soul and flesh in 
this text as he has in the ones we have just quoted. His 
soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see cor- 
ruption." It is evident that the terms spirit, sou?, and 
the phrase spiritual nature, as used in these texts are 
representatives of the same thought. They set before 
our minds that which was with the Father before the 
world was, which left the body at death and went to 
hades — the unseen — while the body was laid in the 
jrave. The term hell in Acts iii, is a translation, though 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 101 

a very erroneous one, of hades, the original word, which 
means unseen, and is the word uniformly used in the 
scriptures to denote the state of the spirits of men after 
they leave the body, and where they remain until the 
resurrection of the dead ; as did our Lord until he burst 
the bars of death — conquered death and the unseen 
state — obtained the keys of death and hades, and thus 
rose a victorious conqueror — having power to open and 
none could shut, and to shut and no one could open. 

But let us see if we can, in any way, solve the insur- 
mountable difficulty presented by the doctor. " Come, 
see the place where the Lord lay.' 1 You perceive my 
friends, that the difficulty here presented, is founded on 
the assumption that the Son of God was all body — all 
the seed of David. And he insists that this must be 
true, because the name Lord is applied to the body. 
JSTow, suppose we should grant this for the accommodation 
of Dr. Field, what then ? Why we would deny thereby 
the divinity of the Son of the Highest, as clearly as does 
the doctor's position, unless he can show that flesh is 
divine. And is it possible that he believes this ! There 
is no way of avoiding this conclusion either logically or 
scripturally without abandoning the premises on which 
it is founded. And are you prepared my friends, to yield 
up that consoling reflection, found in the proposition 
I am defending, which has been believed by the most 
learned and pious of all ages, and which is so clearly 
taught in the many scriptures which I have adduced, and 
as you will perceive by many more yet to be presented, 
for positions which not only level man with the brute, 
but which bring the Holy Saviour to the same common 
level, and presents our Heavenly Father in the singular 
attitude of declaring to the world that be has given a 



102 DEBATE ON THE 

divine being as an only Saviour, who had been glorified 
with him before the world was, and calling upon us to 
believe this in order to salvation, when he had only 
given one all body — simply a child of David. 

But how can we explain the fact that the term Lord 
is applied to the body, on my position that there was a 
spiritual nature resident in the body ? The solution 
then is this. The Lord was manifested to the senses of 
man only by or through the body. Hence as man was 
accustomed to look at the body animated by the spiritual 
nature, which resided in it for the time, and which was 
the Divine Being, and as the body was still before the 
mind, by association of thought, it was perfectly natural 
to speak of it as they did ; not because it was really so, 
but only so in appearance, just as we now speak of the 
bodies of men after the spirit has gone. This is evident 
from the fact that they did not always speak of it in this 
way, but as we have shown from Luke they sometimes 
spoke of it as the body of the Lord. But the facts, as 
already shown, that there was a divine nature, which left 
the body at death, and that the body only was laid in the 
tomb, forever settles the matter. Does Dr. Field believe 
that there was any part of the Lord buried but his body. 
The same reflections that we have made with reference 
to the Saviour, will explain how it is, that the names 
David and Stephen, as also the pronouns of the same 
gender, as the persons for whose bodies they stand, had 
when alive. There is nothing more natural than to speak 
of the dead in this style, by those who believe the doctrine 
on this subject for which I plead. The doctrine was 
believed then, and the style of speaking of them which is 
current now was also current then. And it would be 
just as rational to conclude that the doctrine is not 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 103 

now believed, as to conclude it was not believed then ; 
especially when we remember that the apostles spoke and 
wrote in the popular style of the times. But in this 
objection the proverb, that a drowning man will catch 
at straws, is fully verified. 

The doctor's position with regard to the phrase, 
heavenly regions, sufficiently refutes itself. 

Our attention is again called to Matt, x, 28. The 
doctor asks me to say if I understand that soul and 
spirit mean the same thing. I have sufficiently explained 
that already ; these terms, as I have stated, are different 
in their general meanings. But in a few instances, the 
term soul is synonymous with spirit, this has not been 
denied, and I presume will not be by my friend Dr. Field. 

It will only be necessary to state the doctor's positions 
on this text in order to their refutation. He says the 
word soul here means life ; and in his common sense view, 
he says it means life to come. Well, if this is the correct 
import of this word, it will harmonize with the text when 
substituted for the word itself. Let us try it then, and 
see : " And fear not them which are able to kill the body 
and are not able to kill the life to come, but rather fear 
him that is able to destroy both life to come and body in 
hell." Whoever is not able to see the absurdity of such 
a reading is not to be reasoned with. If it were not for 
the sake of the case, Dr. Field himself would surely be 
ashamed of such a jumble of words without meaning. 
What can the phrase " kill life to come, and body in hell" 
mean. I hope the doctor will explain. His substitute 
then will not do. And how in the name of all reason can 
such a bundle of nonsense as his position makes of this 
text, prove that the commonly received interpretation 
which I have given of this text is incorrect. He says 



104 DEBATE ON THE 

the soul is destructable, grant it. But will he tell us how 
the fact that God is able to destroy the soul, proves that 
the word soul in this text does not mean the immaterial 
part of man distinct from the body as I maintain ? His 
objections then do not affect the point, and consequently 
the text stands with all its force for my proposition. His 
criticism on Rev. vi, is as pointless as that on Matt. x. 
He soars away in a cloud of symbolic mist, and endeavors 
to draw a veil of figures before our minds, that we may 
lose sight of the point submitted. In this, however, he 
shall not succeed. He says my position is incorrect, 
because the spirits were not in heaven, but under the altar. 
The question is not whether the spirit goes to heaven 
immediately when man dies, but that it is in a conscious 
state separate from the body, between death and the 
resurrection. Here a clear distinction is made between 
the souls and the beheaded, he did not see the beheaded, 
but the souls of the beheaded. By the one term man as 
in life is presented, by the other the conscious intelligent 
personality after death ; but before the resurrection. 
But the doctor says the word soul here means person. 
Then the text would read "I saw the persons of them 
that were slain," &c. The term person in such a 
construction is never used only where the living body is 
meant, I challenge the doctor for a single example in the 
whole range of language, where the phrases, her person, his 
person, their persons, the persons of them, &c, are found 
with any other meaning than that of living body ; unless 
he can do this his position utterly fails. For I need not 
tell you, my intelligent friends, that it would be ridiculous 
nonsense to talk about the living bodies of the slain. Let 
him come right up to this point like a scholar, or abandon 
his position, and cease to outrage the language, by using 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 105 

words in senses and constructions contrary to all its laws. 
And in any other sense of the word person, which the 
context will justify, it fully sustains my proposition, for I 
have showed again and again, that there is no personality 
without rationality ; if then, the word souls here means 
persons in that sense there is no need of the doctor's 
figurative personification. This text then is irrefutable 
evidence of the truth of my proposition. [ Time out.~\ 



DR. FIELD'S SIXTH REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends — 

In this discussion, you doubtless perceive that 
there are many collateral questions and minor issues, to 
be settled, which have a relation to my friend's proposition. 
We have already spent a good deal of time in the 
investigation of minor points, which must be harmonized 
with the main question, or with my views of the state of 
man between death and the resurrection. I go, friends, 
upon the principle that truth is perfectly consistent with 
itself in every minutiae. No two truths in nature or 
revelation will conflict in the slightest degree. Sift them 
as you will, analyze, compose and decompose them, and 
they will still agree. The whole fabric of truth is, in all 
its parts, completely harmonious and symmetrical. Under 
this view of truth, I take it that the slightest appreciable 
discord between a proposition and its proofs, or the proofs 
themselves — any disagreement between facts and the 
premises, arguments, and conclusions of a proposition, is 
evidence that something is wrong. All must coincide as 



106 DEBATE ON THE 

truly as the terms of a geometrical problem and the 
demonstration, or it must be taken for granted that there 
is an error somewhere. It may be in the proposition, in 
the premises, or the reasoning. My friend, Mr. Connelly, 
has set out to prove the conscious and intelligent existence 
of the human spirit after death. All the conclusions, 
then, of his logic must agree with his proposition. 
Every minor proposition, argument, and deduction must 
also have a logical connection with the major one. This, 
I hope, will satisfy you that my course on this occasion is 
in strict conformity to logical rules and the duties of a 
teacher of the Christian religion. I came here to do my 
duty in laboring to disabuse your minds of an error, 
that disparages some of the most important truths and 
promises of the gospel. Though long taught and 
believed, it has no higher claims to credence than many 
others of equal antiquity. Its antiquity and popularity 
are no arguments in its favor. Error of all kind, has 
been popular and has been consecrated by time and 
learning. The spirit of research and investigation 
peculiar to this age of improvement, is destined to work 
as great changes in the opinions of mankind, as in their 
institutions. 

A large portion of my friend's last speech was devoted 
to a discussion of the words of David, " Thou wilt not 
leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy 
One to see corruption.' ' I said " soul in hell " here 
meant " dead body in the grave." From this criticism of 
mine, he has drawn some strange and unwarrantable 
conclusions, well calculated to shock your sensibilities and 
impress your minds unfavorably with regard to my views. 
Because I said just what the narrative says, that they 
laid the Lord in the tomb, and Stephen in his grave, h« 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 107 

would have you believe that I represent our Saviour as 
all body or flesh, and thereby degrade him to the lowest 
scale of being ! This is truly a horrible picture to 
present to an audience unaccustomed to hearing any thing 
at variance with the popular views of Christ. To relieve 
your minds, my friends, of all uneasiness on this subject, 
allow me to say that I do not teach that our Lord was 
only flesh, but that he was divine, and that his divinity, 
which was with the Father before the world was, did not 
<ro into the grave. His divine nature could not die. But 
all theologians teach that he also had a human nature, 
which did die. I hope this will relieve my friend, as well 
as yourselves from misapprehension of my views touching 
the divinity of our blessed Redeemer. 

But let us come to the point in hand — the import of the 
phrase " soul in hell" which my friend says is the " spirit 
in hades" He says hell is an erroneous rendering of 
hades, which denotes the unseen state of spirits separated 
from their bodies at death, and where they remain until 
the resurrection. If I understand him, he assumes that 
Christ had; in addition to his divinity, a human body and 
soul ; the body died, the soul did not. Having, then, 
arrived at his idea let us examine the matter in extenso. 
You would do well, my friends, to read the whole of the 
fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, from which I will quote but 
one or two verses : " Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise 
him ; he hath put him to grief ; when thou shalt make 
his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall 
prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall 
prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his 
soul and shall be satisfied ; .... therefore, will I divide 
him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the 
spoil with the strong ; because he hath poured out his 



108 DEBATE ON THE 

SOUL unto death" What -will my friend do with this 
scripture upon his principles ? Here is a positive decla- 
ration that our Lord's soul, be it what it may, was made 
an offering for sin, and died. As certain as ever a lamb 
was slain upon a Jewish altar, just so certain was our 
Lord's soul subjected to death for the sin of the world. 
It is useless to deny this, unless it can be shown that this 
prophecy does not apply to Christ. 

But let us examine Acts, the second chapter, in which 
Peter refers to the sixteenth psalm. My friend thinks the 
question settled by the marked distinction made between 
Jicsk and soul. But let us see. I will read several 
verses and then you will be able to judge whether the 
context confutes me or not : " For David speaketh 
concerning him, (Christ) I foresaw the Lord always 
before my face ; for he is on my right hand that I should 
not be moved ; therefore, did my heart rejoice, and my 
tongue was glad ; moreover also, my flesh shall rest in 
hope ; because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell., neither 
wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption ; . . . . 
therefore, being a prophet and knowing that God had 
sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, 
he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne ; he seeing 
this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ that his 
soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see cor- 
ruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we 
all are witnesses." What is there in all this opposed to 
my criticism ? Nothing whatever, except the distinction 
made between the flesh and soul. And is there not also 
a more palpable distinction between both of them and 
Holy One ? It is a bad rule that will not work both 
ways. If flesh and soul are different in this place because 
of the distinction, is not Holy One also different from 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 109 

them both ? According to his reasoning, there was 
nothing about our Saviour incorruptible except the 
human soul ! Instead of that resting in hope, it was the 
flesh that is said to rest in hope. You see, my friends, 
what difficulties present themselves upon my friend's 
views of this passage of scripture. But there is another 
which I must notice. He has repeatedly quoted the 
dying words of the Saviour — " Father, into thy hands I 
commend my spirit." Yet he really teaches that the 
Lord's spirit went to a place called hades, which accord- 
ing to the views of Alexander Campbell and his church, 
generally, is a subterranean receptacle for the spirits of 
all men good and bad ! He affirms one thing about the 
Lord's soul and Isaiah another ; which will you believe ? 
As if confident of victory here, my friend calls upon 
me to produce a respectable commentator that ever 
* assented to my interpretation of the phrase "soul in 
hell. 1 * Well, I will try. Thomas Scott, in his com- 
mentary on the sixteenth psalm, tenth verse, speaks as 
follows : "Many learned men interpret the two clauses 
of this verse ('thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, 
neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corrup- 
tion ') to mean exactly the same thing; referring both 
of them to the body of Christ laid in the grave, and 
before it saw corruption." Bishop Pearson says, "it 
appears that the first intention of putting these words 
into the creed, (an ancient creed called the Apostles 
creed) was only to express the burial of our Saviour, or 
the descent of his body into the grave." Witsius says, 
u that Christ descended into hell, the place of torment, 
is nowhere expressly affirmed in scripture, nor in the 
most ancient creeds. The creeds which mention the 
descent were generally silent with regard to the burial. 1 ' 



110 DEBATE ON THE 

Dr. Smith renders the first clause of this verse (tenth 
verse:) "Thou wilt not leave my life in the grave." 
Kinnicott translates it, " Thou will not abandon my life to 
the grave." Morrison says, " hell here simply denotes 
the grave — the place of the Redeemer's sepulture ; and 
that my soul was intended to designate that life which 
actually expired on the cross." Professor Bush says, 
"soul in hell here denotes dead body in the grave." Is 
my friend now satisfied that I have a respectable com- 
mentator with me on this subject ? Here is an array of 
authority that no man will gainsay. They fully sustain 
the view I take of this passage. The word hell, as it 
occurs in the sixteenth psalm, tenth verse, is sheol in 
Hebrew, and literally means the grave. In Numbers ix, 
6, we read of "certain men being defiled by the dead 
body (Greek dead soul) of a man, that they could not 
keep the passover." Again, Numbers iv, 6 : "All the 
days that he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall 
come at no dead body. " In the original it is dead soul. 
These are only a few examples of this application of the 
word soul. And now, I ask, what is there unreasonable 
or unscriptural in my interpretation of David's words ? 
Nothing at all. 

The objections offered to my paraphrase of Matt, x, 
28, do not make it as nonsensical after all, as my friend 
would have you believe. Even according to his caricature, 
it would not be so bad. But what has he gained by it ? 
Nothing. He has not denied that the same word 'psyche 
rendered soul in the twenty-eighth verse, is in the thirty- 
ninth rendered life. Besides, he has acknowledged that 
the soul is destructible ; of course, mortal. 

How often must I remind my friend that in prophecy 
and symbolic language where the figure of personification 



STATE OF THE DEAD. Ill 

is used, it is not necessary for the thing personified to be 
really alive, in order to its speaking and acting. It is 
sufficient that it is so in the imagination of the writer. 
Webster, who is very high authority with my friend, 
says : " Personification is the giving to an inanimate 
being the figures, or the sentiments, actions, and language 
of a rational being.' , 

My friend makes large draughts upon me for Bible 
examples of certain forms of expression, which, if I 
mistake not, he has manufactured for me. Hitherto, I 
think I have been tolerably prompt in complying with his 
demands, and shall try to continue so, whenever I feel 
obliged by controversial rules to do it. Every thing, 
assumed on my part, has been fully sustained. I have 
probed my friend's logic with a view to detect its fallacy, 
and I do not feel at all surprised at his finding fault with 
the instrument. Right or wrong, he is determined to 
rejoin to every thing I say, instead of bringing forward 
" a thus saith the Lord " for his doctrine. Let him 
proceed in his line of argument, and at his earliest con- 
venience read in the Bible where it says, "the dead are 
conscious." [Timeout.'] 



MR. CONNELLY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 

Friends and Brethren, 

Having been refreshed by a little recreation and 
the bounties of heaven, we are again assembled to resume 
the investigation of the question in debate. And I fully 
concur in statements made by my friend, Dr. Field, that 



112 DEBATE ON THE 

all truth is harmonious ; hence as we have done in the 
past, we shall continue in the future to show that my 
proposition harmonizes not only with the texts I quote 
to prove it, but with the general tenor of all revealed 
religion. 

We call your attention then to Luke xvi, 19, 31, " There 
was a certain rich man which was clothed in purple, and 
fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day : and there 
was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at 
his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the 
crumbs which fell from the rich man's table : moreover, 
the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, 
that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into 
Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was 
buried. And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in 
torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his 
bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have 
mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip 
of his finger in water, and cool my tongue : for I am tor- 
mented in this flame. But Abraham said, son, remember 
that thou in thy life time, receivedst thy good things and 
likewise Lazarus evil things. But now he is comforted 
and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us 
and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they who 
would pass from hence to you, cannot ; neither can they 
pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, 
I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst send him 
to my father's house : for I have five brethren ; that he 
may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place 
of torment. Abraham saith unto him, they have Moses 
and the prophets, let them hear them. And he said, nay, 
father Abraham : but if one went unto them from the 
dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, if thev 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 113 

hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be 
persuaded though one rose from the dead." 

You cannot fail to see that this text embraces my whole 
proposition. For whether it is a parable as some believe, 
or a matter of history as is maintained by others, is a 
matter of no consequence. If it is a historic fact, then it 
needs no comment. If a parable, the scene is laid among 
the dead, and must be understood as presenting things as 
they are. Conscious intelligent existence is here clearly 
recognized. Indeed there is no other intelligent view 
that can be taken of this passage. Man's ingenuity has 
been taxed to find another consistent interpretation of this 
text, but without success. The doctor may have some- 
thing new, perhaps his figure personification may help 
him, but we will see. 

Having submitted this text for your consideration, I 
will review the doctor's proceedings, and see if his objec- 
tions have all been met. He complains that I notice his 
objections. It would, no doubt, be preferable to him, if 
he could be left undisturbed in visionary and random 
excursions in biblical criticisms. We cannot consent, 
however, to extend his license beyond the laws of reason 
and language, he must not complain, therefore, if we do 
take a little time to expose the absurdity of his positions 
and objections, 

He says my proposition virtually denies a resurrection. 
Why ? because it asserts conscious existence after death. 
This objection has been sufficiently answered already, by 
the facts already established, that death is a separation of 
body and spirit, and that the resurrection is per consequence 
h re-union of the spirit with matter, or if the expression 
would be any better understood, as the body is of the 
earth, a part of what we call physical nature, the resur- 
10 



114 DEBATE ON THE 

rection is a re-union of the spirit with this nature. Hence, 
the fact that the spirit is conscious in the separate state, 
certainly cannot prove they will not again unite. As this 
objection with a large number of the doctor's difficulties 
are founded in the assumption, that death is a cessation 
of consciousness, we call upon him to make good his 
position, for surely if this is not done, his objections fall. 
What authority then has the doctor for such an assump- 
tion ? What author, human or divine, has so declared ? 
And though he has not dared to make even an attempt to 
show that this assumption is authorized, he gravely tells us 
that my position according to his baseless assumption, 
denies a resurrection of the dead. But the doctor should 
have first pulled the beam from his own eye, before 
attempting to take the mote from ours. Let us see, then, 
who it is that denies the resurrection of the dead. He has 
said that man is just what we see, dead or alive, no more 
and no less. According to this, then, there is nothing 
which enters into the composition of man's nature that 
cannot be seen ; hence man is all body, dead or alive. 
This, then, goes to the dust as it was. There is nothing 
that can be seen or recognized as man, any more than 
the dust of the ground. Man, then, is organized matter 
according to the doctor ; and consequently when he is 
disorganized, the man ceases. There is dust but no man. 
So there was dust before man was created at all, but no 
man. It took a creation to make man out of dust at first. 
And as he has returned to the dust as it was, it must take 
a creation to make man out of dust again. Hence, it is a 
new creation and not a resurrection. This is infinitely 
worse than the old heathenish doctrine of transmigration 
of souls, it is a transmigration of bodies, — bodies made into 
other bodies. And this agrees precisely with his critique 



STATE OF THE DEAD. llo 

on 2 Cor. v. He says Paul simply desired a change of 
nature, that is according to the positions as just stated, he 
wished to be somebody else. But not immediately ; he 
wished to be nobody awhile, and then somebody else ! O 
consistency when wilt thou return to religion ! 

We will next call your attention to the views of the 
Saviour, — the Son of God — expressed in his last speech, 
contrasted with what he had said before. To prove his 
unwarrantable and absurd position, that dead bodies are 
persons, he called upon us to note the expressions, " come, 
see where the Lord lay," not a part of him, he says — not 
his remains. This as I have shown denies the divinity of the 
Son of God. But he now tells us that he believes Christ 
had a divine nature which did not go into the grave. 
This much then is right; I am glad to see the doctor 
make some little advances to the truth. For he, of course, 
yields his first position. He has not even attempted to 
show that my conclusions from his premises were not just, 
though, as he says, presenting a horrible picture indeed. 

But let us pursue him upon this point a little further. 
He says I assume that Christ, in addition to his divinity 
had a human body and soul. Now, I would remark 
emphatically, that I assume no such thing. I stated 
distinctly that, the word soul as used by David and 
Peter with reference to the Saviour and the word spirit, 
as in the phrase, '• Father, into thy hands I commend my 
spirit," and the phrase, " Holy spiritual nature," are 
representatives of the same thought, and all refer to the 
divinity of God's Son our Saviour. 

. He next quotes Isaiah, fifty-third chapter, as a parallel 
text, understanding the term soul to be used in the same 
sense in both texts. Of course, then, he understands 
that when it is said of Christ that he hath poured out his 



116 DEBATE ON THE 

SOUL unto deathy it is only declared that he poured out 
his BODY 2in(o death. Consequently, when it is said, 
" Christ died for our sins," " J(svs, who was made a little 
lower than the angels for the sufferings of death — that 
he by the grace of God should taste death for every 
man" — that in all such expressions the BODY only is 
meant, for he says, "his divine nature could not die. 
But only his human nature died" So, then, we have 
only a human sacrifice — a human Saviour. Hence, what 
we are required to believe as the great facts of the 
gospel, by which we shall be saved, that Christ died for 
our sins, that he was buried, and that he rose again the 
third day, is all a delusion. He only sent down a human 
body to death, and brought it back to redeem us ! ! And 
why would not the body of Abel or of Isaac, nay, why 
would not the sacrifices on a Jewish altar have done as 
well ? 0, my soul, cease to wonder at the perversity of 
human speculations ! Perhaps the doctor can now see 
whose principles are involved by his proof text. I have 
said enough on this subject to expose the absurdity of 
the doctor's positions on the phrase, " thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell" But to show the presumption of the 
man y I must call your attention to his array of commen- 
tators — Scott, Bishop, Pearson, Witsius, Dr. Smith, 
Kennicot, Morrison, and Professor Bush. A mighty array 
of names, truly. But strange to tell, not one of the 
whole number except Bush indorses the doctor's position. 
The doctor says the phrase means, " dead bodies in their 
graves." But what say his array of authors ? Morrison, 
Kennicot, and Dr. Smith all render the term soul, life. 
Witsius and Pearson say it appears that it was the first 
intention in putting these words into some the ancient 
creeds, to denote the burial of the Saviour. Scott 






STATE OF IRE DEAD. 117 

says many learned men refer both these terms to the 
hody; so you perceive none of these commentators endorse 
the doctor's views, but simply speak of some learned 
visionaries like Professor Bush, who have taken that view 
of the text. And who is Professor Bush ? A learned 
man it is true, but one of the greatest visionaries of the 
age, who, I believe, has adopted the visions of Sweden- 
borg ; who believes that Christ has come the second time, 
that the resurrection and judgment are passed, and, 
perhaps, that the world is at an end. A respectable 
commentator, with Dr. Field. 

I will notice his remark on the mortality of the soul, 
in its appropriate place. 

He says that it is not necessary where the figure 
personification is used, for the thing personified to be 
really alive in order to its speaking and acting. Well, 
who ever believed that it is ? My position is, that the 
figure personification cannot be used where there is 
rationality. Hence, he has missed the point in my 
argument on the sixth of Revelations, altogether. I will 
again state it : Personality, as the doctor concedes, is 
here attributed to the souls under the altar. There is 
no personality without rationality. The figure personi- 
fication, cannot be used where there is rationality. 
Therefore, his whole scheme of disposing of this text by 
the use of this figure of speech fails, and the text is, with 
all its force, in favor of my proposition. 

I believe, I have noticed every thing in the doctor's 
speech that needs attention at this time, and as I have a 
few minutes more to occupy, I will call your attention to 
another proof text, Luke xx, 37, 38 : " Now that the 
dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he 
calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham, and the God of 



1 1 8 DEBATE ON THE 

Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not the God of 
the dead, but of the living. For all live unto him" 

This is the langfuage of our blessed Saviour to the 
Sadducees, who, like my friend Dr. Field, denied separate 
spiritual existence, and per consequence, a resurrection 
of the dead — denying a resurrection evidently on the 
ground that there was nothing to be raised. The Saviour 
understanding the foundation of their doctrine, in meeting 
the difficulties, the insurmountable difficulty in their views 
to a resurrection, directed his argument to the foundation, 
to the grand error, and proves, by an appeal to Moses 
that there is something to be raised. 

His argument, then, seems to be this : — Moses has 
declared that God is the God of Abraham, the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the 
dead, but of the living ; and, therefore, there is something 
to be raised. And anticipates the objection that Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob were dead, by declaring that all live 
unto him. This is, they are dead to us it is true, they 
have put off their tabernacle, they have gone out of this 
world. But they are alive to God. [ Time out.\ 






DR. FIELD'S SEVENTH REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends — 

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 
sixteenth, has been brought forward. I wonder that it 
was so long delayed ; for it is generally the first thing 
appealed to in support of my friend's doctrine. This, my 
friend says, embraces the whole of his proposition. I 



STATE OF THK DKAD. 119 

am glad to hear it. This fact will, perhaps, considerably 
abridge the discussion. If he should fail here, however, 
it is useless to go any further in quest of evidence, as it 
embraces the whole of his proposition. To his explana- 
tion I offer the following objections — 1st. It pre-supposes 
that the righteous and the wicked are rewarded at 
death, — contrary to what he has already asserted. 2. 
It is said that these persons had their material organs 
with them — eyes, tongue, fingers, and so forth ; the rich 
man is in a flame of fire, and begs for water to cool his 
tongue ; he saw Lazarus afar off m Abraham's bosom, 
not Lazarus' spirit, as my friend would infer. 3. It is 
expressly stated that the rich man was buried, and in hell 
he lifted up his eyes. It would seem that it was subse- 
quent to his burial, at least, that he went to this place of 
torment. My friend makes it before. 4. Between the 
parties there was an impassable gulf, rendering it 
impossible for the good and bad to approach each other. 
This cannot be in the intermediate state, or in hades, as 
my friend understands it ; for according to his views in 
that state or place they are all together ! A gulf could 
be no barrier in the way of disembodied spirits. It is 
also evident from the parable that no communication can 
be made from the dead to the living without a resurrec- 
tion. Here, then, are certain facts attesting the existence 
of these two persons in their bodily state. Unless he 
can show that a spirit has fingers, eyes, tongue, and other 
material organs capable of being tortured by fire, and of 
being relieved by water, his interpretation of this parable 
must be erroneous. 

I stated that his explanation of 2 Cor. v, 1—4, would 
subvert the doctrine of the resurrection ; and he retorts 
by charging such a result on my views. He says 



120 DEBATE ON THE 

resurrection is a re-union of the spirit and the body. 
The word resurrection, signifies a raising to life again 
something that was dead. Now, he contends, that the 
man proper never dies, hence there is, on his principle, 
no resurrection of the man at all ! ! The most that can 
be said of this re-union, is a change in the mode of exist- 
ence. According to him, Jesus did not rise from the 
dead, but only his body ! He teaches that the body is 
nothing but a covering or clothing of the real man, which 
is laid aside at death. We might just as well assert that 
when a locust or a butterfly leaves its chrysalis, that it 
rises from the dead, as to maintain that when man comes 
back from hades in search of his body, he rises from 
the dead. Taking off and putting on your coat, is as 
much a resurrection as the re-union of body and spirit, 
so called by my friend. 

He asks, what authority I have for saying that death 
is a cessation of conscious existence. I answer, the Bible, 
reason, common sense, and universal observation. He 
asks again, and again, what authority I have for saying 
this and saying that. Why does he not demand authority 
for believing that I exist, or that two and two make four ? 

My saying that man is just what we see him, he thinks 
has placed me in a terrible fix. By this postulate, he 
says I will reduce man to dust and then he is no longer 
man, and when the resurrection comes to pass, there 
must be a new creation. He cannot see how God can 
re-organize him and restore his identity. The resurrec- 
tion we all know is a great mystery, so says Paul, and 
whether it can be explained on philosophical principles 
or not, it is nevertheless true that man dies and will rise 
again ; I mean the man proper. But what is there in 
the conclusion which my friend has drawn contrary to 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 121 

God's word ? Does not God say, " dust thou art, and 
unto dust shalt thou return ? " Is not this true of man, 
as we see him with all his intellection ? Is it not declared 
by Daniel and the Saviour, that the saints of God are 
sleeping in the dust of the earth, from whence they will 
come forth in the resurrection ? What is the use of 
quibbling on a matter so plain as this ? 

He denies that Christ had in addition to his divine 
nature, a human soul, and yet he charges me with 
depreciating the value of his death, because, as he says, 
I believe that nothing but his body died. Now, does he 
believe that his divinity died ? I presume not. Then, 
according to his own logic, nothing but the body died, 
hence, he is guilty of the very thing he charges on me, 
of teaching that there was nothing but a human sacrifice 
for our sins ! / Upon his principles, in order to give the 
Saviour's death its due value, more than the body must 
die ; and, as he had no human soul, therefore, to make it 
more than a human sacrifice the divinity must die ! ! 
What a conclusion ! But this is not all. He says that 
the word soul, used by David and Peter, is equivalent to 
the word spirit, which our Lord commended to his Father, 
and means the divinity of the Son of God. Then, when 
our Lord died, he commended to God his divinity — of 
course, it did not die, nothing but the body did, and after 
all, according to his showing, we have nothing but a 
human sacrifice for sin ! 

I must confess, however, that this is the first time I 
have ever heard any one deny that Christ did not possess 
the entire nature of man. That his divinity is denied, 
we all know, but I never heard his humanity denied 
before. The honor of this discovery has been reserved 
for my friend Mr. Connellv. 
11 



122 DEBATE ON THE 

He quibbles about the sense in which the word soul is 
used in Isaiah fifty-three ; but has he denied that it 
died ? He has not. Whether it there means the body 
or the life, or both together, is not important to the 
point in dispute. I have showed that whatever it is, it 
died, and was buried, and afterwards raised ; and this 
stands uncontradicted. 

He speaks rather contemptuously of my commentators, 
especially of Professor Bush. You will recollect my 
friends that he challenged me to produce a respectable 
commentator who concurred with me in the interpretation 
I gave to the phrase, "thou wilt not leave my soul in 
hell." All I intended by mentioning the name of Thomas 
Scott, was to show that he acknowledged that it was so 
understood by many learned men. As to the others, I 
gave their comments, and whatever may be the character 
of Professor Bush for orthodoxy, I presume he will 
admit that Pearson, Witsius, Smith, and Morrison are 
respectable. There is not perhaps in America a better 
Hebrew scholar than Professor Bush, and the fact that he 
is a Swedenborger — a spiritualist, even denying the 
resurrection of the body ; — makes his testimony in this 
case more credible. He believes in the separate existence 
of human spirits, just what my friend is now trying to 
prove, but with all his attachment to that idea he gives 
an honest explanation of the phrase, "thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell," which, he says, means dead body in 
the grave. The Professor, I am sure, cannot be suspected 
of any partiality for my views. 

We are again told that it is necessary to personality 
that there be rationality, and that a thing cannot be 
personified unless it be rational. Then Abel's blood must 
be rational, for it is personified ; so are trees, hills, and 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 123 

other inanimate objects. I am surprised at this statement, 
after the admission that all inanimate objects are personi- 
fied. But it seems my friend is determined to have the 
last word on every point, no matter how often he is 
driven from it. 

He has introduced another proof text, Luke xx, 27-33. 
That you may understand this evidence, I will read the 
whole of it : " Then came to him certain of the Saddu- 
cees, which deny that there is any resurrection, and they 
asked him, saying, master, Moses wrote unto us, if a 
man's brother die without children, that his brother 
should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 
There were, therefore, seven brethren ; and the first took 
a wife and died without children. And the second took 
her, and he died childless. And the third took her ; and 
in like manner the seven also ; and they left no children, 
and died. Last of all, the woman died also. Therefore, 
in the resurrection, whose wife of them is she ? for seven 
had her to wife. And Jesus answering, said unto them, 
the children of this world marry and are given in 
marriage ; but they who shall be accounted worthy to 
obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, 
neither marry, nor are given in marriage ; neither can 
they die any more, but are as the angels of God, being 
the children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are 
raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth 
the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob. For he is not the God of the 
dead, but the living ; for all live unto him." 

With text and context now before us, notice the fol- 
lowing facts : First, The question here is not about an 
intermediate state, but about a resurrection state. Second, 
It is well known to you all that the Sadducees did not 



124 DEBATE ON THE 

believe m either. Had our Lord taught that there was a 
separate state of spirits between death and the resurrec- 
tion, is it not probable, yea certain, that they would have 
asked him whose wife the woman would be in the 
intermediate state or in the spirit world ? The very form 
in which they put the question proves demonstrably that 
our Lord taught that future life depended on the resur- 
rection and not on an immortal nature in man. Third, 
The Sadducees not only denied the resurrection, but they 
also denied the separate existence of human spirits, the 
very doctrine for which my friend is now pleading. The 
Lord gently reproved them, not for their unbelief in the 
conscious existence of human spirits after death, but for 
denying the power of God, or the possibility of a 
resurrection — see Mark xii, 24. The stress of the 
argument here is on the declaration " that God is not the 
God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him." 
On this, it is assumed that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
are alive because God is their God. Then it was useless 
to say any thing about their resurrection as a sine qua 
non to this fact. Their resurrection was the very thing 
to verify this declaration. This was the question at issue 
between our Lord and the Sadducees. The very fact 
that God is the God of the living, and that he is the God 
of these patriarchs at the same time, makes it necessary 
to raise them. For ii he did not, he would be the God 
of the dead. Therefore, in view of the resurrection, they 
are prospectively spoken of as not only being alive, but 
actually raised. Thepresenttense of a verb is often used 
to denote an event yet future, in order to show its certainty. 
Numerous examples can be given of this form of speech ; 
and if required, I will produce them. 

I have said, my friends, that the construction given by 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 125 

my friend to second Cor. v, 1, subverts the resurrection 
of the body that dies. In Paul's first letter to the Corin- 
thians, he has fully presented this subject, and has shown 
clearly that without a resurrection of the body that dies, 
there is no future life. And that the whole man is 
corruptible is evident from the fact that he alleges that 
incorruption and immortality are put on, not received 
back, or into, as would be the case on my friend's 
principles — see verse fifty-three. Here it is apparent 
that there is a change of nature taught. Mortality puts 
on immortality, or as Paul says in his second letter, 
mortality is swallowed up of life. When this happens, 
death is swallowed up in victory. According to Paul, 
immortality is bestowed on the righteous in the resurrec- 
tion, not before. Therefore, until that glorious time, we 
must remain under the dominion of death. We cannot, 
as some people imagine, sing the victor's song at death. 
It is then that we are conquered by the last enemy, whose 
power can only be destroyed by our Lord Jesus Christ. 
I would like to know how my friend reconciles his theory 
with what Paul says about a corruptible something 
putting on incorruption, and a mortal something putting 
on immortality. What is it that is said to be mortal ? 
Whatever it is, mark it my friends, it simply puts on a 
quality or an attribute. It does not re-unite with some- 
thing from which it had been separated, called an 
immortal soul. 

In this chapter, Paul represents the dead in Christ as 
being asleep, and if not raised from the dead, they have 
forever perished. I say again, this could not be upon 
the supposition that man by nature has an immortal soul, 
or never-dying soul, as Plato taught. A -resurrection of 
the dead body is of no importance to a soul that can live 



126 DEBATE ON THE 

" unhurt amid the war of elements, the wreck of matter, 
and crush of worlds." The doctrine which I am com- 
bating is a figment of heathen philosophy, and is, beyond 
all doubt, a vain, a foolish speculation. 

That man is to all intents and purposes mortal, 
and at death will fall into an unconscious state, I will 
now proceed to show from the word of God. This state 
is called a sleep, because from it there will be a waking 
up. But the second death is never called a sleep, because 
from it there is no waking. The first text I shall submit 
to your consideration is, Rom. i, 23, " And changed the 
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like 
to corruptible man, and to birds, and to four footed 
beasts, and to creeping things.' ' Here man is contrasted 
in this particular with his Creator, and declared to be 
corruptible. In the new translation, the Greek adjective 
fliiharton is rendered by the word mortal, and aphtharion 
by the word immortal. This is correct. They made a 
likeness of mortal ?nan and worshipped it instead of the 
immortal God, who is blessed for evermore. 

Job iv, 17 : " Shall mortal man be more just than 
God ?" Now, neither justice nor injustice, virtue or vice 
can be predicated of the body. It must be of the intel- 
lectual and moral nature. Hence, according to the text, 
the man proper is said to be mortal. 

Again, we read in 1 Tim. vi, 16, " That God only hath 
immortality. " No man or angel by nature is immortal. 
It is a quality or attribute communicable from God to his 
creatures. By grace it is bestowed on the righteous in 
an appointed way and time. Angels who kept their first 
estate have obtained it, and in the resurrection those who 
sleep in Jesus will also receive it, and be in that respect 
equal to the angels. [ Time out.] 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 127 



MR. CONNELLY'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 

Ladies and Gentlemen — 

I am sorry that my friend Dr. Field is so much 
disturbed at my exposing the absurdities of his objections 
to my propositions. He has been so long accustomed to 
make bold assertions, and to assume unwarrantable and 
unauthorized positions undisturbed, that he thinks it 
strange that he is not allowed to run to the same excess ; 
complaining that I reply to every thing he says, and am 
determined to have the last word. I would be glad to 
sympathize with him in his troubles, but can give him no 
comfort. Before the authorities he must come. But I 
call again and again for authority for this, and authority 
for that. So I have, but as you will bear me witness, I 
have called in vain. How presumptious I am, that I 
should call upon the great Dr. Field for the proof of any 
thing he says ! For his assertions are as plain as his own 
existence, or that two and two are four. Who could 
stand against such authority ? All this may answer the 
doctor very well, but I am greatly mistaken in the intel- 
ligence of this community, if his ipse dixit will be sufficient 
authority here. 

Hence, if he will pardon us, we will still examine his 
positions, and call for some evidence as we go along. 

He says his authority for regarding death a cessation 
of conscious existence, is the Bible, reason, common 
sense, and universal observation. But will Dr. Field 
allow us to ask him where in the Bible it is so declared ? 
And is it not entirely unaccountable that this common 
sense fact, founded on universal observation, has never 



128 DEBATE ON THE 

been expressed by any authority under the heavens either 
human or divine ? If it has been so rendered by authority, 
let the doctor produce it. For I am sure that would be 
better received than his assertions. But our attention is 
called to Rom. i, 23, Job iv, 17, 1 Tim. vi, 16, to prove 
that man is mortal and that at death he will fall into an 
unconscious state. Why should he spend his time in proving 
that man is mortal ? Has that ever been denied ? Have 
I not conceded that in the very structure of my proposi- 
tion. The question then, is not whether man is mortal 
or immortal, but that when man dies his spirit remains in 
a conscious state, separate from the body until the 
resurrection. The texts he quotes, proves that man is 
mortal — no one disputes that. But what does mortal 
mean but subject to death ? And what is death ? A 
separation of body and spirit, as we have shown — 
abundantly shown — from various texts. Hence, these 
scriptures quoted by the doctor, give no intimation of 
unconsciousness in death. This phrase is not in all the 
Bible. Hence, according to the logic of my friend, the 
thought is not there. This is singular logic, it is true, 
but peculiar to Dr. Field. You can perceive then, my 
friends, that I hazard nothing in admitting what I believe, 
that man dies — the whole of man. He does not cease to 
be conscious, but dies. This view of the subject, which 
I have maintained from the beginning of this debate, 
which, as you see, accords with the authorities of our 
language, as well as its usage, and also with the Bible, 
will at once remove all those difficulties which the doctor 
has tried to throw around the resurrection, and will 
explain too, those scriptures quoted from Genesis and 
Daniel. The body which was made of dust, returns to 
dust, but the spirit dies to the body — departs from this 



8TATE OF THE DEAD. 129 

world — returns to God who gave it, who retains it in 
hades, the unseen state, until the resurrection. This 
view will also explain the death of Christ, not the 
humanity only, but Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour, 
who was glorified with the Father before the world was. 
His body was laid in Joseph's new tomb. His spiritual 
nature went to the regions of the dead, obtained the 
power of death — the keys of death and hades. The 
power to open and none could shut, to shut and none 
could open. But he says, I deny the humanity of Christ. 
This deserves no reply, as it was evidently made merely 
to fill up the time. For it must appear singular enough 
to you, my friends, that the doctor will charge me with 
denying the humanity of Christ for saying he had a 
human body, when he maintains that the body is all there 
is of man. I would say once for all, then, that i" believe 
that Christ died for our sins, not the human nature only, 
but human and divine nature both. He did not cease to 
be conscious, but died. 

He charges me of speaking contemptuously of his 
commentators. I only showed that none of them but 
Bush agreed with Dr. Field, and that the Professor was 
too great a visionary to be relied upon. But the doctor 
says this makes his evidence in the case the more credit- 
able ; that is, the greater visionary, the better authority, 
with Dr. Field. This, I reckon, will not be questioned by 
the doctor's acquaintances. 

We are again called to notice the doctor's figure 
personification. He cannot see the difference between 
personality and the figure personification, consequently, 
he thinks that, if rationality is essential to personality, 
Abel's blood, trees, &c, must be rational, because they 
are personified. This is equalled only by his position 



130 DEBATE ON THE 

that the personal pronouns are applied to inanimate 
things by the figure personification. I fear we shall 
soon be constrained to think the doctor himself is here 
by personification. 

Let us next notice his remarks on Job iv, 17 : " Shall 
mortal man be more just than God." He says that 
neither justice nor injustice, virtue nor vice, can be 
predicated of the body very well. That is all true 
enough. But what are justice, injustice, virtue, vice, 
<fec, predicated of then ? He says of his intellectual and 
moral nature ; but what is his intellectual and moral 
nature ? He told us yesterday that while man lives, he 
is so constituted that his material organization eliminates 
mind, thought, reason, and all other mental manifesta- 
tions. According to this, man's intellectual and moral 
nature are only the eliminations of his material organi- 
zation. Hence, man is neither vicious nor virtuous, saint 
nor sinner. These are predicated only of the eliminations 
of his material organization ; they are predicated only of 
what man shows off. This is surely the most profound 
discovery of the age. 

We are again told that my interpretation of 2 Cor. v, 
1, subverts the doctrine of a resurrection. And the 
apostle's remarks in the fifteenth chapter of 2 Corinthians 
are cited as evidence. This I have sufficiently answered, 
and I would not advert to it here, but for the additional 
statement that the apostle here teaches corruptibility of 
the whole man. He insists upon this, because the apostle 
here says this corruptible must put on incorruption, and 
this mortal must put on immortality. Assuming that as 
the apostle means the spirit, on my position on the fifth 
chapter of 2 Cor. when he speaks of being clothed upon 
with that house which is from heaven. And as the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 131 

apostle in the twenty-fifth chapter of first Cor. uses the 
phrase put on* This mortal must put on immortality. 
He must mean the spirit then, also. To expose the 
fallacy of this position, we will give a few facts : First, 
the terms mortal and corruptible, as well as the original 
words, of which they are translations, are adjectives. 
And as all adjectives must agree with some noun, either 
expressed or understood, and as the noun is not expressed 
in this text, it must be understood. Second, when the 
man in his present organized state is meant, the original 
word is anthropos. The different parts are expressed by 
the words soma, (body) psuchee (which is variously 
rendered by the words life, mind, heart, and by 
metonomy for that which has life, a living being or 
individual, hence, when it means the man, it always means 
the living man) and pneuma the spirit. Now, the question 
is, which of these words should be supplied in the text. 
To aid us in determining this, we will give a third fact. 
Greek adjectives are distinguished by gender as well as 
the nouns, and are required by the principles of the 
language to agree in gender with the nouns which they 
qualify. Hence, we cannot supply anthropos, man, because 
it is masculine, and the adjective is neuter, nor can we 
supply psuchee, because it is feminine, and the adjective 
will not agree with it. The context will not allow us to 
supply pneuma. Soma (the body) then, is the only word 
that can be supplied in this text that will accord with the 
context and the principles of the language. His conclusion 
therefore, is founded in his own imagination. 

Dr. Field— I can find other nouns beside soma to suit 
the adjective. 

Mr. Connelly— Try it, then. 

Dr. Field — I will, in due time. 



132 DEBATE ON THE 

We will now notice the doctor's difficulties with regard 
to the condition of the rich man and Lazarus. He has 
presented what he calls four facts attesting the existence 
of these persons in their bodily state ; he has not told us 
however, whether it is before or after the resurrection. 
Will he shed some light on that subject ? But let us 
attend to his facts. First — He says my interpretation 
pre-supposes that the righteous and wicked have gone to 
their final reward. This pre-supposition is no doubt very 
clearly before the doctor's mind, but I doubt very much 
whether it can be seen by any one else, and he has not 
told us how it is to be perceived. Is it because Lazarus 
is happy and the rich man is unhappy ? Then, the fact 
that the righteous and wicked are in different conditions 
in this life, must pre-suppose that they have gone to their 
final reward already. Second — It cannot be the spirits of 
those persons ; because they are represented as having 
material organs, such as eyes, tongue, fingers, &c. Ac- 
cording to this logic then, God is not a spirit, for he is 
represented in the scriptures as possessing all these 
organs, "whose eyes are over the righteous, and his cars 
are open to their prayers." The scriptures indeed, 
abound in expressions where these organs are regarded 
as belonging to God. Hence, it would seem that though 
the doctor will not answer my question directly, whether 
God is material or not, still he believes he is. This 
accords precisely with his position that to be immaterial 
is to be nothing. Third — It is expressly stated that the 
rich man was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes." 
And does this prove that he was unconscious or in a bodily 
state ! ! ! But the doctor says he went to torment after 
his burial. Well, that is my position, Dr. Field's assertion 
to the contrary notwithstanding. Fourth — Between the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 133 

parties is an impassable gulf, that is all true ; but will 
my friend show how the fact that the wicked cannot 
become righteous, or the righteous unrighteous after 
death, proves there is no intermediate state of conscious- 
ness ? These objections, then, are only imaginary, and do 
not in the least militate against my interpretation of this 
important text. Will the doctor please tell us in his 
next speech what he understands the meaning of the 
text to be ? 

Having thus disposed of the doctor's objections to my 
argument on Luke xvi, I will examine his remarks ou 
Luke xx, 27, 28. Are you able, my friends, to discover 
any thing in the context as repeated by the doctor, that 
militates against my argument on it ? Did I not state 
distinctly that the question was with regard to the resur- 
rection, and that they denied the existence of separate 
spirits ; which was the foundation of their difficulties on 
the resurrection ? But he says that they would not have 
asked any thing about the resurrection if the Saviour had 
taught a separate state. If this objection has any thing 
in it, it is this : That the Sadducees wished to ask the 
Lord something, and as Jesus taught nothing else, they 
had to ask about the resurrection rather from necessity ! ! 
But he says the whole passage is prospective, and proposes 
to show numerous examples where the present tense of a 
verb is often used to denote action yet future, in order to 
denote its certainty. We will all be edified by his effort 
I have no doubt. The present tense, and even the past 
is sometimes used in -prophetic style for the future. But 
will Dr. Field affirm that the declaration of God to Moses 
at the bush, which is quoted by the Saviour in Luke xx, 
is a prophetic declaration ? We will see. And unless he 
can establish that point, his whole scheme of interpretation 



134 DEBATE ON THE 

on this text, fails. We will wait to hear from him again 
on this subject, and proceed to some other texts, Luke 
xxiii, 39-43 : " And one of the malefactors which were 
hanged, railed on him saying, If thou be Christ, save 
thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him 
saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the 
same condemnation ? And we indeed justly ; for we 
receive the due reward of our deeds ; but this man hath 
done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord 
remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And 
Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt 
thou be with me in paradise." [Time out.] 



DR. FIELD'S EIGHTH REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends — 

The doctrines advocated by my friend, on the 
subject of life and death, are essentially the same as those 
of Emanuel Swedenborg and Prof. Bush. Upon his 
principles no man ever did or ever will really die. A 
mere change in the mode of existence is all that his death 
amounts to. Man no more dies when he throws off his 
material body, than does the locust when it throws off its 
shell. With as much truth may it be said of the locust, 
the dragon fly, or the butterfly, when they leave their 
chrysalides, that they die, as it can be said of man that 
he dies when he "shuffles off this mortal coil." I take 
you my fellow-citizens to be a reflecting people ; and that 
you will not lay aside common sense in order to accom- 
modate your religious principles to a figment of heathen 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 135 

philosophy. According to my friend's views, death is 
nothing more than a separation of the man from his 
dwelling place called sometimes a tenement of clay, a 
clog, a mortal coil, &c. The body is not the man, but an 
incumbrance of the man. The spirit and that only, is, 
according to his views, the man proper. Thus you see, 
my friends, that it can no more be affirmed of a man that 
he dies when he leaves the body, than it can be said of 
you that you die when you walk out of your houses. 
Will my friend say that the locust dies when it separates 
from its aurelia ? He certainly will not. The presence 
of the locust gives vitality to its chrysalis ; but when 
detached from it, this external covering perishes ; hence, 
according to my friend, the very utmost that can be said 
of the death that he contends for is, that only a part of 
man dies, and not the man himself. Upon his principles, 
death is an improved state of existence. As the butterfly 
ascends from its chrysalis in an improved and more 
beautiful form, so man rises from his body in a condition 
better adapted to thought and enjoyment. This is 
precisely the doctrine of the Swedish Baron. It follows, 
then, as a corrollary from these premises, that there is no 
such a thing as a resurrection. His proposition should 
have been framed thus : When a man vacates his earthly 
house of clay, he goes to the spirit land where he 
continues in a conscious state until he is compelled to 
return and occupy his old house again. 

My friend asks me for Bible authority for saying that 
death is cessation of conscious existence. I have given 
it ; and I wish it to be understood, that this authority 
shall be an additional objection to his interpretation of 
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. By way of 
refreshing his memory, I will now present further proof 



136 DEBATE ON THE 

of the unconsciousness of the dead. Job xiv, 10-H. 
"But man dieth and wasteth away ; yea, man giveth up 
the ghost and where is he ? As the waters fail from the 
sea, and the flood decayeth and dryeth up ; so man 
lieth down and riseth not till the heavens be no more ; 
they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep." 
If there were no other passage of scripture on the 
subject but this, it is sufficient proof of the unconscious- 
ness of the dead. Language cannot be more explicit in 
affirming the profound and unconscious sleep of the dead. 
Again, Job says, chapter tenth, that if he had died at 
birth, he would have been as though he had not been. 
He then prays for a continuance of life that he might 
enjoy some comfort before he went " to the land of 
darkness, and the shadow of death ; a land of darkness, 
as darkness itself ; and of the shadow of death without 
any order, and where the light is as darkness." This 
does not look much like "the spirit land" of heathen 
mythology and modern poets. Comment on such lan- 
guage as this is useless. David says, " As for me, I will 
behold thy face in righteousness ; I shall be satisfied 
when I awake (from death) in thy likeness." Ps. xvii, 
15. Again : "For in death there is no remembrance of 
thee ; in the grave (shcol or hades) who shall give thee 
thanks? Ps. vi, 5. Again : Ps. lxxxviii, 10-12, "Wilt 
thou show wonders to the dead ? Shall the dead arise 
and praise thee ? Shall thy loving kindness be declared 
in the grave (s7ieol or hades) and thy faithfulness in 
destruction ? Shall thy wonders be made known in the 
dark ? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetful* 
ness ?" Again: Ps. cxv, 17, "The dead praise not the 
Lord, neither any that go down into silence." Again, 
the Psalmist says, " Put not your trust in princes, nor in 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 137 

the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath 
goeth forth, he returneth to his earth ; in that very day 
his thoughts perish." Ps. cxlvi, 3, 4. Again : Ecc. ix, 
5, 6, "For the living know that they must die, but the 
dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a 
reward ; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also 
their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now per- 
ished ; neither have they any more a portion for ever in 
any thing that is done under the sun." Also, verse tenth : 
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy 
might ; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, 
nor wisdom, in the grave, (sheol or hades) whither thou 
goest." 

I have thus summed up in a connected view, some of 
the evidence on which I rest the assertion that the dead 
are in an unconscious state, without knowledge. No 
sophistry can avail any thing against such declarations 
as these ; nor can they be harmonized with my friend's 
explanation of his proof texts. It follows, then, that 
they mean something different from what he supposes ; 
and who that reads them carefully with a view to a 
harmony of the Sacred Record, can fail to see that there 
is no absolute necessity, growing out of either the laws 
of language, figures, or parables, for interpreting them as 
my friend does. 

But my friend, Mr. Connelly thinks, or pretends to 
think, that Professor Bush is high authority with me 
because he is a visionary like myself. I presume you all 
understood me, my friends, to say, when I quoted Dr. 
Bush, that he ought to be good authority with my friend, 
as they hold the same views of the soul, and its nature. 
It is plain to be seen that my friend is hard pressed for 

arguments. Whether I am a visionary or not, I think it 
12 



138 DEBATE ON THE 

likely, that I will so sharpen his vision before this debate 
is over, as to make him see that the question, to say the 
least of it, has two sides to it. 

With respect to man's mental manifestations being his 
moral nature, and capable of good or evil passions and 
decisions, he thinks it an absurd idea. I would ask if he 
ever knew a man to have reason, reflection, or any of the 
moral passions without a brain ? Has he never seen 
men — living men — with diseased brains utterly unable 
to think ? Doubtless he has. If, then, man cannot think 
and reason with a diseased brain, how is he to do it 
without a brain ? If my friend's views be true, it would 
make no sort of difference, so far as mentality is con- 
cerned, whether a man's head is filled with brains or 
blood ! The spirit, or man proper, capable of living and 
acting without the body or any of its tissues, is still in 
existence in full possession of all its powers. Why, then, 
do we not see some of the manifestations of this spiritual 
man when the natural man is out of fix ? The very fact 
that man is to be rewarded for the deeds done in the 
body, and that the body must be punished, proves that no 
man can sin without a body or brain. His mind being a 
product of his brain, therefore, a sound and healthy brain 
is essential to moral or legal accountability. In the day 
of judgment infants and idiots, whose brains are immature 
and incapable of performing the function of thought, will 
not be held amenable to the divine law. 

My friend Mr. Connelly, gives us the Swedenborg in- 
terpretation of Luke xx, 27, 20. He takes the ground 
that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are not only alive now, 
but actually raised from the dead. So far, then, as they 
are concerned, the resurrection is past. This was the 
doctrine of Hymeneus and Philetus, which Paul con* 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 139 

deinned as subversive of the faith of the church. He 
cannot get out of this dilemma while he takes the position 
he does. The difficulty, and the only one in the way of 
my explanation, is easily removed, and that without 
departing from the Hebrew idiom. As stated, the verb 
is here used in the present tense to show the certainty of 
a future event. The present and perfect tense are both 
used in speaking of future events. For example : John xvii, 
4, " I have glorified thee on the earth ; I have finished 
the work thou gavest me to do." Here our Lord speaks 
of the work being finished, when the most important part 
of it was yet to be performed. For it was not until he 
expired on the cross that it was really finished. Here is 
an instance of a prospective event spoken of as already 
past. But again : "And now I am no more in the world, 
but these are in the world, and I come to thee." See 
eleventh verse. Here our Lord uses the same phraseology 
when speaking of his departure from the world. Again : 
Rom. iv, 17, " As it is written I have made thee a father 
of many nations before him whom he believed, even God, 
who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which 
be not, as though they were." Here Abraham is called 
a father of many nations, when as yet he had no child. 
Again : 2 Tim. i, 10, " But is now made manifest by the 
appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished 
death, and brought life and immortality to light through 
the gospel." These examples of this form of speech 
could be greatly multiplied. It was as easy for God to 
say to Abraham, I will make thee a father of many 
nations as to say, I have done it. But he used the past 
tense of the verb for the same reason that he uses the 
present when he speaks of the dead as being raised. 
But there is another difficulty to be disposed of which 



140 DEBATE ON THE 

I will notice. God is said to be not the God of the dead, 
but of the living ; therefore, it is assumed that Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, are now living, for God is their God. 
If this be the meaning of the passage, let us see how it 
will agree with some others: Rom. xiv, 8, 9, "For 
whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; or whether we 
die> we die unto the Lord ; whether we live, therefore, or 
die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, 
and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the 
dead and living." Here is proof positive that God is the 
God of the dead, as well as the living. I will now prove 
that Abraham is among the dead : John viii, 52, 53, . . . 
" Abraham is dead, and the prophets ; and thou sajest 
if a man keep my saying, he shall not see death. Art 
thou greater than our father Abraham who is dead ? and 
the prophets are dead, whom makest thou thyself?" 
Now, how will my friend reconcile these declarations with 
his understanding of Luke xx, 37, 38 ? It cannot be 
done on any other principle than the one I have mentioned. 
[Here the doctor spent some time in reading English 
and Greek definitions of the words death, resurrection, 
&c, pending which his time expired.] 



STATE OF THE DEAD. Ill 



Third Dat, ) 

Monday morning, 10 o'clock. \ 



MR. CONNELLY'S NINTH SPEECH. 

After prayer by Rev. Mr. Jameson, Mr. Connelly 
rose and said : — 

Brethren and Fellow- Citizens : 

A kind and beneficent Providence has preserved 
our lives through another day, commemorative of the trium- 
phant victory of our Lord and Saviour over death. And 
I trust we have made a Sabbath day's journey towards 
the climes of the blessed beyond the tomb, and have so 
improved the sacred hours of that holy day, that we are 
better prepared to continue the investigation of our destiny. 

Before we advance we would do well to review the past, 
that we may see our progress. I confess, however, that I 
am not very well prepared to do this, having no notes of 
the gentlemen's speeches on yesterday. [The allusion here 
is to the«fact, that Mr. Proctor and Dr. Field had each 
delivered a discourse bearing directly on the question in 
debate.] 

[Dr. Field here rose and said, that Mr. C. was misin- 
formed. That the addresses alluded to had nothing to 
do with the question in debate. That he had, at the 
earnest solicitation of several of the leading members of 
the church, delivered an address on the punishment of the 
wicked, but was careful not to trench on the ground 
covered by Mr. C.'s proposition.] 



142 DEBATE ON THE 

The doctor closed his last speech on Saturday evening, 
by reading certain definitions from Dr. Webster, which 
have no more relation to the question before us, as must 
be evident to all who were present, than they have to the 
infallibility of the Pope of Rome. We will then call your 
attention, again, to the meaning of the words in dispute 
involved in my proposition. And it would seem, too, 
that this is a work of supererogation ; for you, my friends, 
must all be satisfied that I have defined and used these 
terms in their popular, as well as in their scriptural 
meanings. And it cannot be possible that Dr. Field is so 
ignorant of the English language, that he does not know 
that I have defined and used these terms as they are 
commonly defined and used by the standard authorities 
of our language. Although he would make you believe, 
at least so far as mere declamation can affect your faith, 
that my views of life and death are wholly speculative, 
and contrary to every principle of common sense, and 
opposed to all the laws of language. But will he affirm 
that I have not given the definitions of the words in 
question as they are found in our dictionaries ? Or that 
they are not reported in these books as they are used by 
the best speakers and writers in our language ? Or will 
he affirm that these words do not correctly represent the 
original words of which they are translations ? Come up, 
doctor, to these points, like a Christian and a scholar ; 
for here is a much better chance to display scholarship 
than declamation. A mere school boy can quibble and 
declaim ; and I am greatly deceived in your powers of 
discrimination, my friends, if you have not perceived that 
Dr. Field has done little more than this from the com- 
mencement of this discussion. 

But let us see, again, what Dr. Webster, who is tho 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 143 

adopted standard of the English language among our 
people, says on the subject of life and death. Death, he 
says, is " that state of an animal or vegetable, but more 
particularly of an animal, in which there is a total and 
permanent cessation of all the vital functions." But 
what is meant by vital functions ? Vital, pertaining to, 
or necessary to life. Death, then, according to Webster, 
is that state in which the organs necessary to life have 
not only ceased to act, but have lost the power of renewed 
action. Life, he says, in man, (the very point in dispute,) 
that state of being in which the soul and body are united. 
Life and death, then, are states or modes of being ; the 
one a state where spirit and body are united, the other a 
state where spirit and body are separated. This is evident 
not only from the foregoing definitions, but also from that 
of die, (the term of my proposition,) which, when used 
with regard to man, is to depart from this world. This 
harmonizes perfectly with those declarations of the Bible, 
which show that at death the spirit separated from the 
body, and which have been so often repeated. 

My views of life and death, you perceive, my friends, 
is in perfect accordance with the common sense and 
common understanding of the entire republic of letters, 
and also with the Bible ; and are, therefore, correct. 
Hence, as reflecting people, you are not under the neces- 
sity of departing from either common sense or the Bible, 
in order to believe them. 

But the doctor says, Emanuel Swedenborg and Pro- 
fessor Bush believe a doctrine essentially the same as that 
I have just set forth. And what if they do ; is it therefore 
false ? Will he please tell us how their belief or disbelief 
affects the truth of any proposition ; or does he affirm, 
that the fact that great visionaries sometimes believe the 



144 DEBATE ON THE 

truth, renders it false ; no matter how clearly and plainly 
it is taught in the word of God. So it would seem- 
Hence, if such men happen to believe the Bible, it must 
therefore be false. Strange logic this. The doctor only 
designed, perhaps, to bring in disrepute, by associating 
it with such names, what he cannot refute. 

He thinks my interpretation of Luke xx, 27, 28, places 
me in an inextricable dilemma. And why ? Because I 
teach that the Saviour, in answering the difficulties of the 
Sadducees with regard to the resurrection, directed his 
answer to the foundation of their difficulty, and proved 
that there was something to be raised — and Swedenborg 
believes the dead are raised — therefore I am in an inex- 
tricable dilemma ! This needs no reply. But he says 
the verb is here used in the present tense to show the 
certainty of a future event. I have admitted that the 
present tense, and also the past, are, in prophetic language, 
used in setting forth future events ; and I also admit, that 
the verb arc raised sets forth an event yet future. All 
this is true, but it does not touch the point in my argument 
on this text. My argument here is founded on the quota- 
tion from Exodus iii, 6. I am the God of Abraham, the 
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, connected with the 
Saviour's own statement, that God is not the God of the 
dead, but of the living, for all live unto him. And called 
on the doctor to say, whether this quotation and declara- 
tion of the Saviour are prophetic ; and we call on him 
to say. Will he still remain silent ? Instead of answering 
this question, he gravely sets out to prove that the 
Saviour's declaration, that God is not the God of the 
dead but of the living, is not true! This he does by 
showing that God is the God of the dead as well as of 
the living. Dr. Field and the Saviour for it, then, with 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 145 

respect to this difficulty. And the doctor thinks these 
scriptures will harmonize only on his principles, will he 
try his skill at reconciliation in his next speech ? That 
there is perfect harmony in these texts, with my interpre- 
tation of them, will be evident by noting the following 
facts. The Saviour speaks of those who are dead to us, 
but are alive to God. In the other texts, God is said to 
be the God of the dead to us ; on the principle as stated 
by the Lord, that all live unto God. There is, therefore, 
an existing being between death and the resurrection, 
which lives to God, and is, therefore, conscious. 

Because the body is the organization through which 
the spirit holds communion with external things, and by 
which it operates here, the doctor cannot see that man 
has any moral nature, except his mental manifestations. 
Nor can he see how he will ever be able to think without 
the body, because he cannot now manifest his thoughts 
to others without the means that God has furnished him 
with here. But let us look at his position again. The 
moral nature of man is all that is virtuous or vicious. 
This moral nature is nothing but the mental manifesta- 
tions, and these mental manifestations are only the elimi- 
nations of the body, the organization which can be seen, 
which the doctor says is all there is of man. Hence it 
follows that man is neither virtuous nor vicious, wicked 
nor righteous, saint nor sinner, nor is he accountable at 
all. There is nothing accountable, nothing right or 
wrong, virtuous or vicious, but the eliminations of man. 
Could any thing be more absurd. And this is the way, 
my friends, that Dr. Field would expose a dangerous 
error into which we have fallen, which he has been pleased 
to denominate a figment of heathen mythology ! 

Having utterly failed to show that my interpretation 
13 



146 DEBATE ON THE 

of the various proof texts which I have introduced is 
wrong, or to give any other interpretation of them, and 
having come here to object to my proposition at all 
hazards, as a last resort he sets out in his last speech to 
give a number of texts which he thinks teach a different 
doctrine, and thereby he thinks to array the scripture 
against itself. And suppose he should do this, would it 
prove that my proposition is not taught in the scripture, 
or would it only show that the scripture is not to be 
believed ? But we anticipated as stated in my first speech, 
that this would be his course. And hence suggested in 

DO 

advance, that, as the Bible is true in all its parts, and as 
truth is always harmonious w r ith truth, every text, whether 
introduced by the doctor or myself, should be so inter- 
preted as to agree not only with its own context, but with 
every other text in the Bible. We will, then, before we 
advance with our argument, examine the doctor's texts, 
to see if we have pursued this course. 

Our attention is first called to Job xiv, 10-13. "But 
man dieth and wasteth away ; yea, man giveth up the 
ghost, and where is he, as the waters fail from the sea, 
and the flood decayeth and drieth up : so man lieth down 
and riseth not : till the heavens be no more they shall 
not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." This, the 
doctor thinks, is altogether conclusive of the profound 
and unconscious sleep of the dead. This phrase, however, 
is neither in this text nor any other text in the Bible, 
neither in form or sense. And the doctor says, where 
the words are not found the thoughts are not to be 
expected. Hence, according to his logic, his conclusion 
is not in the premises ; but we will show this fact from 
another direction. You perceive that the stress is here 
placed upon the word sleep. Why, then, are the dead 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 147 

said to sleep ? He lias already informed us, and correctly, 
too, that it is because there is to be a waking, or resur- 
rection. Then it is not because there is no consciousness 
there. And will my friend, Dr. Field, affirm that there 
is no consciousness in sleep ? There is, then, no authority 
under the broad canopy, for his groundless conclusion. 
Let us now look at his quotation from the tenth chapter 
of Job. " O that I had given up the ghost, and no eye 
had seen me, I should have been as though I had not 
been." On the doctor's plan of interpretation, what Job 
here affirms of himself, if he had died at birth, is as true 
of all after death as of those who die at birth. Hence, 
after death man has no existence at all ; consequently, 
all that is said in the scriptures about the dead is so much 
said about nothing. Or does he intend to affirm with his 
brother, Dr. Thomas, that infants will not be raised at 
all ? We would like to be informed on this point. The 
context clearly shows Job's thoughts in this text to be 
this, that if he had died at birth he would have been free 
from all the difficulties of this life. Hence, it would have 
been as though he had not been at all, and not as the 
doctor thinks, that he would have had no existence at all. 
This text, then, says nothing of the unconscious sleep of 
the dead, or that death is a cessation of consciousness. 

His quotation from Job xvii, has been answered in our 
remarks on Job xiv, the point being the same. We next 
notice the sixth Psalm. ''For in death there is no 
remembrance of thee, in the grave who shall give thee 
thanks." This, as you perceive, is a conclusion from 
what has been before stated, and in reading the preceding 
verse in connection with this, the meaning will be plain. 
" Return, Lord, deliver my soul, save me for thy 
name's sake. For in death there is no remembrance of 



148 DEBATE ON THE 

thee, in the grave who shall give thee thanks/' The 
desire expressed here is for salvation, in view of the fact 
that there is no chance of salvation in the grave ; those 
who go to the grave unprepared give God no thanks, they 
do not remember the Lord, the term remembrance being 
used in the sense of obedience. This is again taught in 
his quotation from Psalm Jxxxviii : "Wilt thou show 
wonders to the dead ? shall they arise and praise thee," &c. 

And as we have shown before, the same facts are taught 
in Ecc. ix, that is, in the grave there is no knowledge of 
salvation ; God's offer of salvation is not extended beyond 
this world. Hence, as is shown in the case of the rich 
man and Lazarus, the wicked have no means, after death, 
of changing their condition. These scriptures furnish no 
difficulty to my interpretation of this parable. But will 
Dr. Field venture to tell what it means with him. 

But we must not dismiss this subject without noticing 
the cxlvi Psalm : " Put not your trust in princes, nor in 
the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath 
goeth forth ; he returneth to his earth ; in that very day 
his thoughts perish." The term thoughts in this text, as 
is evident not only from the word used in the Septuagint, 
but from the context, means designs or purposes. We are 
exhorted not to trust in man, for though he may design 
to bless us, he is destined to die, when his purposes must 
fail — they must perish. 

Hence, not one of these texts furnishes the shadow of 
evidence that death is a cessation of consciousness, nor do 
they all together give any ; they all harmonize readily with 
all my proof texts, and attest the correctness of my posi- 
tions. Will the doctor harmonize them with my proofs 
on his principles ? He must try his hand again. 

[Time out.] 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 149 



DR. FIELD'S NINTH REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends : 

Before replying to niy friend, Mr. Connelly's 
speech, this morning, I will briefly review the ground 
traveled over in this discussion, and see what progress has 
been made, and how the question stands. The proposition 
for debate is — That when man dies his spirit remains in a 
conscious state until the resurrection. 

To his definitions I have offered several objections, 
especially to that of the human spirit, which he says is 
an immaterial, intelligent, and rational entity, capable of 
thinking and acting when separated from the body. The 
proof of this definition would be the proof of his proposi- 
tion. If, however, he fail to prove that the spirit is what 
he represents it to be, his cause is lost. 

That there is no authority in the Bible for such a defi- 
nition, every candid man will admit. Such phrases as 
immaterial spirit, never-dying, immortal soul, and the 
death that never dies, are not there. They are as truly 
the words of man's wisdom as transubstantiation, con- 
substantiation, purgatory, the invocation of saints, uncon- 
ditional election and reprobation, total depravity, and 
scores of other Ashdodical expressions, against which he 
and his associates in the ministry have so loudly declaimed. 
For these reasons I reject the definition, and oppose the 
philosophy built thereon. It is true, he may find author- 
ity for his definitions in our modern dictionaries, which 
are nothing more than exponents of the popular ideas 
attached to words, but it is certain that the Bible does not 
use the word in the modern philosophic sense. 



160 DEBATE ON THE 

He defined death to be a separation of the body and 
spirit. This, I have shown, is a vague definition, but was 
so contrived to accord with the doctrine of his proposition. 
It is true, that at death the spirit, whatever it is, is sepa- 
rated from the body. The same is true of all the physical 
and mental manifestations, which are, one and all, the 
effect rather than the cause of death. As Solomon says, 
" When the silver cord is loosed, or the golden bowl be 
broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the 
wheel broken at the cistern, then shall the dust return 
to the dust, as it was, and the spirit return unto God 
who gave it." Here it is evident that a separation of 
body and spirit is the result of death, and not the cause 
of it. 

Physiologically considered, death is that state of being 
in which there is a total and permanent cessation of the 
vital functions, when the organs have not only ceased to 
act, but have lost the susceptibility of renewed action. 
To die, then, is to cease to breathe, to suspend permanently 
the circulation of the blood, the motion of the heart, and 
other physical organs. This definition is in strict accord- 
ance with the laws of life and universal observation. It 
is also in perfect agreement with the Bible — " His breath 
goeth forth, he (the man himself) returneth to his earth ; 
in that very day his thoughts perish," Ps. cxlvi, 4. The 
intellect, mind, or thoughts, dependent on organized matter 
for their production and development, necessarily cease 
when the body dies. It is the most gratuitous assumption 
imaginable to say that the thoughts are the man's designs 
or purposes. If it were affirmed any where in the Bible 
that man could think after death, we might suppose this 
to be a mistranslation. But as it is, there is no need of 
this strained criticism. But the quibble is in keeping with 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 151 

his views of several of my proof texts, which I shall have 
occasion to notice hereafter. 

In support of his proposition, he first proved that there 
is a distinction between the body and the spirit. This I 
admitted ; and so there is between the body and the life, 
and the body and the breath, the body and the soul, 
and between the body and its members ; but does it, 
therefore, follow that all these things, attributes, or appen- 
dages, are personal identities, capable of thinking and 
acting without the body ? Certainly not. 

He next proved that there are spirits in existence, 
endowed with life, personality, and consciousness. This 
I also admitted ; but doeu it follow that they are human 
spirits separated from the body ? I have shown that 
living men in this world are called spirits, and that even 
dead men are called spirits. He contended that personality 
could only be predicated of being — rational being, and as 
spirit, in his judgment, is the rational part of man, it must 
be involved in the idea. I have shown that dead bodies 
are called souls, and also that dead men, just as we see 
them, are personated by all the personal pronouns in tho 
English language ; therefore, there is not, even on my 
friend's principles, any more impropriety in calling dead 
men spirits than in calling them souls. Spirit and soul 
with him are synonymous, and if it be admissible to apply 
the word soul to a dead man, it cannot be improper to use 
the word spirit in the same sense. Spirits in prison, then, 
are no more than dead men in prison or in their graves, 
held under the power and dominion of death. 

Proving that there are living spirits unseen by us in the 
heavenly regions, or wherever he chooses to locate them, 
amounts to nothing. For I offset this by showing that 
angels are spirits, so are the demons, and the saints will 



152 DEBATE ON THE 

be when resurrected, or as stated in 1 Cor. xv, they will 
have spiritual bodies. 

Thus far, then, he has gained nothing by his labor. 
Nothing short of a "thus saith the Lord" will establish 
his proposition. Let him lay his finger on the text that 
says the dead are conscious, — that a man may be dead 
and alive at the same time — and in fact know more after 
he is dead than when alive, and I will surrender the point. 
This is what he and his party have insisted on as the fair 
way to settle disputed doctrines and practices between 
themselves and the sects. It is the only way ever to bring 
about union among Christians ; and now I call upon him 
once more to produce the authority, or give up his philo- 
sophical tenet of immortal soulism. 

In conducting this discussion, he has, contrary to logical 
and polemic rules, amended his proposition, by incorpo- 
rating into it the word soul, which, he says, in some places 
in the Bible is synonymous with the word spirit. I have 
allowed him this liberty for the sake of a thorough exam- 
ination of every passage that could in any wise favor his 
views. But what has he gained by it ? Nothing. For 
I have proved by his own quotations that the soul is 
destructible. On this point, however, I intend to amplify, 
and will place it beyond all doubt or cavil. 

I have shown, that his inferences from certain ambigu- 
ous and metaphorical statements of Paul and Peter would 
contradict numerous plain and positive declarations of the 
Bible, with which he has not attempted fairly and logically 
to reconcile them. He may sa}>- of my proof texts that 
they simply mean that the dead cannot obey the Lord, 
that they know nothing of salvation, &c. But Solomon 
says " they know not any thing" and, as if that were liable 
to be misconstrued, he has told us that their love, envy, 



STATE OF THE .DEAD. 153 

and hatred are likewise perished. This cannot be, upon 
my friend's principles, and well lie knows it. Moreover, 
when Solomon says there is no knowledge in sheol or hades, 
he does not make an}' exceptions or limitations. It is 
sheer nonsense to say that this only means that there is no 
knowledge of salvation there. David says the dead praise 
not the Lord. How can this be if they are alive and in 
Abraham's bosom, or in a place of happiness ? Will he 
tell us ? 

With this statement of the present attitude of the ques- 
tion, I will notice some other points in his last speech. 
In his remarks on Job xiv, he says that sleep is not a 
state of unconsciousness ; and calls on me to prove that 
it is. Why, my friends, I scarcely think it worth while 
to prove a matter that every man of sense knows to be 
true. In sleep, when it is perfect, there is an entire and 
complete suspension of the intellectual operations. It is 
a well known fact that when we sleep soundly we have no 
thoughts whatever, not even a dream. Hence the rapidity 
with which time flits away. I see some aged persons in 
this congregation who have lived to their three score 
years, and perhaps longer. Now, if they have slept as 
much as the laws of health require, they have slept 
twenty years. This is comparatively a long time. But 
suppose they had slept the whole of these twenty years 
without intermission, it would have been no more to them 
than one night, provided they were in good health, and 
the sleep was perfect. I do not say that there is a perfect 
analogy between death and natural sleep, but it is the best 
trope that could be selected to represent it, and in regard 
to the suspension of intellection, the resemblance is more 
striking. And now, let me ask, my friends, if it is at all 
likely that a dead man knows a great deal, when a living 



154 DEBATE ON THE 

t 

man may be in a healthy conditiou for twenty years with- 
out knowing any tiling at all ? 

My friend, Mr. Connelly, asks me to say whether 
God's words to Moses at the bush, in relation to Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob, were prophetic ; I answer, no ; 
but the Saviour's remarks to the Sadducees, " that the 
dead are raised," is. This is all I asserted, and I 
have given examples of that idiom in relation to future 
events. 

We have heard a great deal about the authority, if not 
the infallibility, of lexicons. My friend has plead man- 
fully for them, and thinks it very presumptuous in me to 
refuse implicit submission to their definitions. By way 
of testing his honesty, I will read him a definition of a 
word of great importance in his theology, and see how he 
will like it. We will first take Greenfield, the author of 
a small Greek lexicon, attached to the Greek New 
Testament. The word selected is baptize — Greek, bap- 
tizo — which he defines thus : To immerse, immerge, 
submerge, sink. This is its natural, literal, and primary 
meaning — but this same lexicographer says, that in the 
New Testament it means to wash, to perform ablution, to 
cleanse. Will my friend admit that ablution is baptism ? 
Not he. Yet his legicographer says it is. 

Again : Let us try him by Dr. Webster. Take the 
same word, and how does he define it ? Hear him : 
"Baptism — the application of water to a person as a 
sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated 
into the visible church of Christ. This is usually performed 
by sprinkling or immersion." Again: "Baptize — to 
administer the sacrament of baptism, to christen ! " Will 
my friend admit this ? Will he bow to the authority of 
Webster, and acknowledge that he has been doing wrong 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 155 

all this time, in contending that nothing* but immersion 
is baptism ? - s 

You see now, my friends, how much these dictionaries 
are worth, when they deal in theological questions. 

My friend's philosophy stands on two legs — first — the 
nature of spirit ; and second — that the spirits of the dead 
are alive in a place called hades. You will recollect, my 
friends, that you were told on Saturday evening, that no 
other noun but soma (body) will suit the Greek adjective, 
phtharton, (corruptible,) in 1 Cor. xv, 53. My friend 
stated, that when man, as originally organized, is spoken 
of, the Greek noun anthropos is used ; but when the 
different parts are spoken of, soma and pneuma, (body 
and spirit,) are employed. From this you see that the 
spirit is only a part of the man, and not the man himself. 
But this, by the way. He says anthropos will not agree 
with the qualifying adjective in this verse, because it is 
of the masculine gender, and the adjective is neuter ; 
pseuche (soul) will not do, because that is feminine ; and 
pneuma (spirit) will not do, because it will not agree with 
the context. It is not because of the gender of this noun, 
but because the context will not allow it. Mark that, my 
friends. I should like to know, by the by, what there is 
in the context to preclude its use in this case. He has 
come to the conclusion, however, that no other noun but 
soma will do. Recollect another fact which his proposition 
and arguments all affirm — that the spirit is the man 
proper — that it is a rational, intelligent entity, which 
can and does live independent of the body. It must, 
consequently, be in the masculine gender. (Here Dr. 
Field, addressing himself to Mr. Jameson, one of the 
moderators, asked him to say what was the sign of the 
neuter gender in Greek. Mr. Jameson answered, " The 



156 DEBATE ON THE 

article to." Dr. Field resumed.) The definite article to, 
then, indicates the neuter gender of nouns. The signs 
of the genders are as follows : Ho aner, the man — He 
'gune, the woman — To soma, the body. Am I right, 
Mr. Connelly ? (" Yes," was the answer.) Very well ; 
now let us see if we can find another noun besides soma, 
which will agree with the adjective phtharton, in 1 Cor. 
xv, 53. Turn, my friends, to Matthew xxvii, 50 : "And 
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded 
up (to pneuma) the ghost." Again : Matthew xxvi, 41. 
" Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The 
spirit, indeed, (to men pneuma,) is willing, but the flesh 
is weak." Here, then, we discover the important fact, 
that spirit is a noun in the neuter gender, and no living, 
intelligent entity at all ; and with this discovery falls one 
of the pillars of his theory. It is demolished beyond a 
doubt, and his air-castle, built upon the philosophy of 
spirit, tumbles to the ground. So far, then, as gender is 
concerned, the noun pneuma will agree with the adjective 
in question as well as soma. But I do not say that it is 
the noun there understood. 

Now for the other pillar of his system. He has 
informed us again and again, that the spirits of the dead 
go to hades, where they are alive, some happy, others 
miserable, until the day of judgment. But what does the 
scripture say on the subject. Let us see — Rev. xx, 13 : 
Speaking of the general judgment, when the dead, small 
and great, stand before God, we are told "that the sea 
gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hades 
delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were 
judged, every man according to their works." Hereyou 
see, my friends, that hades, like the sea, is a place of dead 
people ! ! Even if it were true, that human spirits go 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 157 

there at death, this text settles the question as to their 
condition. Thus you see how completely the Greek has 
overthrown his doctrine of the intermediate state ! ! 
Nothing can save his cause, unless he can show that the 
Bible does not mean what it says. These two incon- 
testable facts, that the spirit of man is a noun in the neuter 
gender, and that whatever is in hades is dead, must forever 
hang like a millstone around the neck of his system. It is 
impossible for him to prove his proposition while thus 
hedged up on every side. 

If I understood him, he fully indorses the views of 
Baron Swedenborg, on the subject of death and the resur- 
rection. Just what I expected. Every body acquainted 
with the views of Swedenborg, knows that he teaches that 
death is nothing but a change in the mode of existence ; 
that when a man dies he then gets all the resurrection 
he ever will have, which is nothing but an exit of the 
spiritual body from the natural. 

He explains the declaration, that Christ is Lord both 
of the dead and living, to mean, that he is Lord to those 
who are dead to us. That all are really now (not pros- 
pectively) alive to him. Now, just look at the sophistry 
here. Paul says, in the same connection, Romans xiv, 8 : 
" For whether we live we live unto the Lord, or whether 
we die we die unto the Lord ; whether we live, therefore, 
or die, we are the Lord's." Here we have proof that 
men die unto the Lord. Then comes in the passage in 
question : " For to this end Christ both died, and rose, 
and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and 
living." It is truly said, that there are no men so blind 
as those who are determined not to see. 

He admits that man cannot think here without material 
organs ; or, in other words, without a brain. How, then, 



158 DEBATE ON THE 

in the name of sense, can lie think hereafter without a 
brain — when all his material organs are dead ? But he 
makes quite an effort to manufacture something out of 
the idea, that thought or mind is an elimination of 
the brain. Upon this hypothesis, he says the guilt of 
sin would attach alone to the body. And what if it 
should ? Has not the body suffered for sin since the 
foundation of the world ? And did not our Lord bear our 
sins in his body on the tree ? According to my friend, 
Mr. Connelly, it is all wrong to punish the body at all. 
The spirit being the man proper and the sinner, ought 
alone to suffer the penalty of the law. Instead of that it 
escapes, and the whole weight of punishment falls on the 
poor body ! ! It is like visiting upon a man's house the 
penalty due to crimes, instead of visiting them on him. 
It is neither more nor less than punishing the innocent 
for the guilty. 

In his comments on the tenth chapter of Job, he comes 
to the conclusion that he meant, that if he had died at 
birth, he would have escaped all the difficulties of this 
life. He is compelled to give the passage this meaning, 
to avoid the admission that there was a time when Job 
did not exist consciously ! ! According to this logic, 
there never was a time when Job did not exist ! ! This 
kind of reasoning would prove the Persian doctrine of 
the pre-existence of souls. To show that Job meant no 
such thing, let us hear from him, as to what would have 
been the consequence of his death. He says, " He would 
have gone to the land of darknsss and the shadow of death, 
from whence he would not return, and where the light is 
as darkness." But he thinks my understanding of this 
passage of scripture will lead to the conclusion, that after 
death man will have no existence at all, and that to speak 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 159 

of the dead would be to speak of nothing. Not exactly. 
There is some difference, I apprehend, between existence 
and conscious existence. There are thousands of things 
around us, that exist without knowledge or consciousness. 
But he thinks that it will lead to Dr. Thomas' doctrine 
of the non-resurrection of infants, and calls on me to say 
whether I hold this sentiment or not. I answer, no. 
Dr. Thomas, it is true, does ; but I cannot see how it 
can possibly result from either his or my views of the 
mortality of man. While on this subject I would remark, 
that the so called reformation preachers and editors, and 
Mr. Campbell at their head, have denounced and non- 
fellowshiped Dr. Thomas for believing in the non-resur- 
rection of infants ; and at the same time they court the 
fellowship of the Calvinists, who believe in the damnation 
of infants. Yes, they would fellowship the man who 
teaches unconditional election and reprobation, and exclude 
from their churches a man who teaches a doctrine far less 
odious and unjust. Mr. Campbell believes that infants 
are sinners, and cannot be saved without a change of 
heart ; and as that cannot be effected without faith and 
baptism, therefore, in the next world, they will be placed 
under a system of moral training to fit them for heaven ! ! 
( See his debate with Rice. ) The subject of infant salvation 
has perplexed other men besides Dr. Thomas. His expla- 
nation of the words of David, "In the grave who shall 
give thee thanks," and when man dies his thoughts perish, 
will not do. In the Hebrew, the word grave is sheol ; in 
the Septuagint it is hades, the very place where he locates 
the spirits of men. If his explanation is true, the spirits 
of all the righteous who are in hades are destitute of 
gratitude — they don't thank God for what he has done 
for them ! ! The Psalmist says that the thoughts of a man 



160 DEBATE ON THE 

perish at death, and that he himself returneth unto his earth. 
The word thoughts is in the Septuagint dialogismoi, from 
the verb dialogazomai, and is defined by Schrevelius — 
reasoning, thoughts, cogitations, considerations, <fcc, but 
not designs, as you have been told. [ Time out.'] 



MR. CONNELLY'S TENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

As the doctor has occupied the most of his last 
speech in recapitulation, there is but little in it that has 
not been fully met, and we are perfectly willing that an 
impartial public shall judge and decide as to what we 
have done or not done in sustaining our proposition. 
There are, however, a few things in his recapitulation 
which we must notice again, that his emphatic assertions, 
and his effort to create a fog, may not lead your minds 
away from the points that have been made. 

I have been called on again and again for a text of 
scripture that says when man dies his spirit remains in a 
conscious state separate from the body. That this is 
merely an appeal "ad captandum vulgas " must be evident 
to all present. Does Dr. Field intend to affirm by this 
that there is nothing taught in the scriptures, and no 
proposition to be sustained by the Bible, but what is 
stated in so many words ? If he does not, then there is 
no meaning to this stereotyped demand. If he does so 
affirm, then he confesses that his own position of death is 
untrue, for he knows that such a form of words as "pro- 
found, unconscious sleep of the dead" is not in all the 
Bible. And as I have before said, I now repeat, that such 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 161 

a state is not described or alluded to in the Bible in any 
form of words. But that is not all. According to his 
logic, the scriptures do not teach that men will be con- 
scious and intelligent after the resurrection, nor do they 
teach that the angels of heaven are conscious and intelligent 
beings. They do not even teach that Gfod, our creator, 
the Father of our spirits, is a conscious, intelligent being. 
For such a form of words is no where used in the Bible 
with reference to any beings in the universe. And hence, 
according to this profound logic, we must conclude that 
there are no beings which possess these attributes ! This 
may do for my friend, or it may answer to fill up his time 
in the absence of argument. But I am sure, my friends, 
that you, who are in the habit of reasoning on the holy 
scriptures, are prepared to detect the fallacy of this 
demand. For, as you have seen that the scriptures not 
only teach that the spirit is conscious and intelligent while 
in the body, but they show that it leaves the body at death, 
and they present numerous instances where these attri- 
butes are possessed by the dead. Hence the spirit is not, 
as my friend would have us believe, merely an elimination 
of the body, dependent on organized matter for existence, 
but an intelligent identity, whether in the body or out of 
the body. And its separation from the body is neither 
the cause nor the effect of death, but death itself. 

He says soul and spirit, with me, are synonymous. 
This is all gratuitous. I have stated distinctly that the 
words are different in their general meanings — that they 
mean the same thing in a few texts only. But on this 
assumption he builds an argument that he will be accred- 
ited with inventing — evidently his own. He says he has 
shown that dead bodies are called souls, and also that dead 
men are personated by all the personal pronouns in the 



152 DEBATE ON THE 

English language, therefore, there is no more impro- 
priety in calling dead men spirits than in calling them 
souls ! 

Whether we have reconciled his texts, introduced as 
counter evidence, we will leave those who have heard the 
discussion, and those who may afterwards read it, to 
decide for themselves. If, however, he will point out the 
text on which we have failed, we will try it. He objects 
to my interpetration of Eccl. ix, because Solomon says 
the dead know not any thing. So he does ; but they know 
not any thing about what, I ask ? The doctor says they 
know not any thing at all, on any subject. Solomon does 
not so affirm. But my friend says Solomon makes no 
exception or limitation, to which we answer that the 
context, and the general tenor of the scriptures, must 
always limit the meaning of any remark that is found in 
the Bible. A disregard to this is the great source of 
error in the interpretation of scripture. To see the force 
of this, and as an expose of the doctor's remarks on this 
text, note a remark in the second verse, "As is the good 
so is the sinner, and he that sweareth as he that feareth 
an oath." Now, you must perceive, my friends, that this 
expression is just as unlimited as the remark about the 
knowledge of the dead ; and hence, according to Dr. Field, 
proves that the good and the sinner are alike in every 
respect. This, you will say, does violence to the context, 
and to the general teachings of the Bible with regard to 
these two classes. That is all true. And it does no 
greater violence than the doctor's interpretration of his 
quotation ; for his interpretation here cannot be reconciled 
with the various texts that I have adduced, showing con- 
sciousness and knowledge to be possessed by the dead. 
This the doctor knows, and consequently he has not tried, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 163 

and I will confess that I am no prophet, if he can be 
induced even to make the attempt. 

Nor will his view harmonize with the immediate context 
of his quotation. To see this let us read, beginning at 
the third verse : " This is an evil among all things that 
are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all : 
yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and 
madness is in their heart while they live, and after that 
they go to the dead." Here it is affirmed with regard to 
the wicked that they have madness in their heart, not only 
when they live, but after that they go to the dead. How 
could this be if there is no consciousness there ? But 
Solomon continues : " For to him that is joined to all the 
living there is hope " — hope of what, let me ask ? Hope 
of remaining intelligent and conscious ? " That which a 
man hath why does he yet hope for ? " What more intel- 
ligent reply can be given than the one I have submitted — 
hope of salvation. While there is life there is hope ; we are 
still surrounded with the means of God's favor to man. 
We should, therefore, improve these opportunities now, 
for soon we shall be deprived of them; death will surely 
come and remove us from this world, where there is no 
offer of life and salvation ; where the wicked obey not, or 
remember not the Lord ; where they have no portion in 
all that is done under the sun ; where they shall be for- 
gotten by the living ; for the writer continues, " The living- 
know that they must die, but the dead know not any thing, 
neither have they any more a reward ; for the memory of 
them is forgotten, also their love, and their hatred, and 
their envy is now perished, neither have they any more 
a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun." 
Solomon then returns to the righteous, and exhorts them 
to faithfulness and patience, and urges them to be instant 



164 DEBATE ON THE 

and earnest in doing whatever may be their duty, as we 
shall soon die, when there will be no further opportunities 
of preparing for a future life, or future blessings. "For 
there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom 
in the grave whither thou goest." The context, then, 
limits the meaning of this text to this particular kind of 
knowledge — the knowledge of salvation, or redemption. 

You are all called upon by the doctor to affirm that you 
know nothing when asleep, but who will so affirm ? AVill 
Dr. Field himself? The very affirmation would neces- 
sarily refute itself, for it would affirm that he knows 
something when he knows nothing. But even if he could 
demonstrate that there is no consciousness in sleep, it 
would not affect the question, for he has conceded that 
the term is applied to the dead not because they are 
unconscious, but because there is a waking or resurrection. 

The doctor admits that the declaration to Moses at the 
bush, quoted by the Saviour in the twentieth of Luke, is 
not prophetic. That it is a statement of an existing fact, 
that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He 
is not the God of the dead, but of the living ; therefore, 
as the Saviour declares, all live unto him. My argument 
on this text is irresistible ; indeed, it is virtually conceded. 
The truth here declared is utterty irreconcilable with the 
doctor's interpretation of his own proof texts. Will he 
show his skill at reconciliation in this department ? 

My friend is still greatly troubled and perplexed with 
the lexicons ; this, however, is not to be wondered at, as 
they are so decidedly against him. But how greatly has 
he changed since Friday morning. You remember with 
what confidence he called on me to come to these standard 
authorities. He, however, makes quite an effort to show 
my appeal to the lexicons to be as insincere as his own, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 165 

by arraying the definitions of some other words, which he 
supposes I do not believe. This is all gratuitous ; for I 
repeatedly stated how these authorities are to be regarded. 
They report the meaning of words as used at the times 
for which they write. If they report the definitions cor- 
rectly, we have no right to depart from them. If they 
have given them incorrectly, their errors can be shown 
by an appeal to the use of the words in the writings of 
those who use them. I have called upon the doctor to 
show that the words of my proposition are not defined by 
the lexicons in accordance with the use of our language. 
This he has not dared to do. I also asked him to show 
that these words do not correctly represent the original 
words of which they are translations. He has not even 
attempted this, and yet he continues to talk about the 
authorities. Of this, perhaps, we should not complain, 
as he must have something to fill up his time. 

Our attention is again called to the fifteenth chapter of 
1st Corinthians — " This corruptible must put on incorrup- 
tion," &c. Is it not a little remarkable that the doctor 
should represent me as saying that the Greek language 
has but one noun in the neuter gender. 

Dr. Field. I did not say so. 

Mr. Connelly. What did you say, then ? 

Dr. Field. I said you asserted that there was no noun 
but soma that would suit here. 

Mr. Connelly. So I did, and so I affirm still. But my 
friend says pneuma will suit. Let us try it and see. I 
stated before that it was neuter gender, but that the con- 
text would not allow it to be used here. Let us, then, 
read the forty-fourth verse : " It is sown a natural pncuma, 
it is raised a spiritual pnucma." Is this the reading ? No, 
my friends. This would sound exceedingly harsh and 



166 DEBATE ON THE 

nonsensical. " It is sown a natural body, (soma,) it is 
raised a spiritual bod}-," (soma.) The body, then, and 
not the spirit, is the point before the apostle's mind. 
The doctor's effort, then, signally fails. 

But his remarks with regard to the neuter gender, that 
the spirit is not an intelligent identity, because 2^neuma is 
neuter gender, are superlatively ridiculous. According 
to this, the Holy Spirit is not an intelligent entity, neither 
are angels, nor is God himself ; for it is distinctly stated 
that " God is a spirit," (pncuma,) John iv, 24. The same 
word is applied to the angels, Heb. i, xiv. The doctor's 
effort here will fully explain why he so much dreads an 
appeal to the Greek. 

We will attend to his remarks on Rev. xx, when we 
hear from him with regard to the rich man and Lazarus, 
and the Saviour and the thief on the cross. 

I will now introduce an argument founded on the law 
of God, enacted against necromancy, but will first read a 
few texts in which this is set forth. Dieut. xviii, 10, 11, 
" There shall not be found among you any one that maketh 
his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that 
useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, 
or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar 
spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.' ' Also Lev. xviii, 
7, "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto 
devils," &c. " This shall be a statute forever." Also 
Psalms cvi, 34-38, " They did not destroy the nations, 
concerning whom the Lord commanded them. But were 
mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. 
And they served their idols, which were a snare unto 
them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters 
unto devils. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of 
their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 167 

the idols of Canaan ; and the land was polluted with 
blood." [Timeout.] 



DR. FIELD'S TENTH REPLY. 

Brethren and Friends : 

Solomon says that " there is nothing new under 
the sun," but I must confess that /have heard something 
new this morning ; for this is the first time in my life that 
I ever heard that it could not be proved from scripture, 
in so many words, or at least words equivalent, that God 
is a conscious, intelligent being ! ! For me to spend time 
in proving such a fact, would be but little less than an 
insult to your intelligence. Every man who has read the 
Bible, knows that it abounds with declarations that God 
" knows all things" — that he is a being of infinite 
knowledge, wisdom, and power — that he sees, hears, 
and speaks, and never sleeps, or for one moment pretermits 
his watchful care over the mighty works of his hands. 
With this abundant evidence that God is conscious and 
intelligent, we are gravely told that it cannot be proved ! ! 
Nor, says my friend, can it be proved, in so many words, 
that angels, and the saints, after their resurrection, are 
conscious and intelligent. What ! Beings that have been 
seen on earth time and again — ministering to men in all 
ages — bearing messages from heaven to earth — and 
employed in executing the judgments of God against 
wicked nations and individuals — cannot be proven to be 
conscious and intelligent ? Pshaw ! 

But forsooth, I cannot prove, in so many words, that 
the dead are in a profound unconscious sleep ; nor have 



168 DEBATE ON THE 

I said that I can. But have I not proved,, in so many 
words, that they "know not any thing" — that they 
have no knowledge nor wisdom in hades — that the dead 
praise not the Lord — that in hades they are dead, and 
render no homage or thanksgiving to God ? Have I not 
proved that the passions of the dead are perished — that 
they are asleep ? Now let my friend, Mr. Connelly, prove 
in words equally as clear and decisive, that the spirit of 
man after death has knowledge — that its love, envy, and 
hatred, have not perished — that the dead do praise the 
Lord, and we will not dispute about the exact form of 
the words. All that is necessary is to produce the state- 
ments in language of the same import. 

He wants to know if I take the ground, that no propo- 
sition can be sustained by the Bible, unless affirmed in so 
many words. No, I do not. But I take the ground, that 
the proposition itself must be affirmed ; and no matter in 
what words it is couched, the declarations, words, and 
phrases of scripture adduced in its support, must be 
equivalent in their meaning to the words of the propo- 
sition. Any other position than this, gives rise to all the 
conflicting doctrines and practices which now divide and 
sub-divide the Christian world. This is the ground once 
occupied by the church to which my friend belongs, and 
on this they rested the hope of bringing about a union of 
all sects on the Bible alone. But they have left it ; and 
it is now their practice to infer doctrines like the sects ; 
hence, the contentions and divisions now occurring among 
them. 

For the purpose of showing that Solomon did not mean 
what he said, when he stated that " the dead know not any 
thing" he quotes a part of the second verse of the same 
chapter as follows : " As is the good so is the sinner, and 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 169 

he that sweareth as he that fcareth an oath." This he 
thinks a parallel expression, which must be understood in 
a restricted sense. Had he quoted the whole verse, it 
would have refuted this assertion. Solomon is speaking 
of "one event, (death,) which happens to all, to the 
righteous and to the wicked; to the good, and to the 
clean, and to the unclean ; to him that sacrificeth, and to 
him that sacrificeth not ; as is the good so is the sinner ; 
and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. ,, 
Eccl. ix, 2. This passage affords him no aid whatever. 
In the matter of death of which Solomon speaks, there is 
no exception in favor of the good. The little sophism my 
friend erected on a part of this verse, is too transparent 
to deceive any one familiar with the Bible. 

His comments on the third verse are equally as sophis- 
tical. He tries to make Solomon say, that madness is in 
the heart of men after they die. If this had been his 
meaning, the passage would have read thus : " Yea, also 
the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness 
is in their hearts while they live, and also after they go 
to the dead." And besides, he would have taken care 
not to contradict himself by saying, in the next breath, 
that when a man dies his love, envy, and hatred perish. 
It is plain to be seen, that whatever of the evil passion of 
madness exists in a man's heart in his life-time, it ends 
at death, according to Solomon. The stress with my 
friend is on the word that, which evidently has "while 
they live 1 * for its antecedent. If his interpretation be 
correct, the word that is "wholly superfluous, as I have 
shown. If such logic as he has given us on this ninth 
chapter of Ecclesiastes is satisfactory to you, my friends, 
I must acknowledge that you are very easily pleased. 

It is thp duty of a debater to state the issues between 
15 



170 DEBATE ON THE 

himself and his opponent fairly and intelligibly. I feel 
conscientious in saying that this has been my course 
during this discussion. But I regret to say, that I have 
observed a proneness in my friend, Mr. Connelly, to 
misrepresent, unintentionally no doubt, the issues and 
points in debate. For example : He says I have conceded 
that the term sleep is applied to the dead, not because 
they are unconscious, but because there will be a waking 
or a resurrection. I deny that I ever conceded, directly 
or indirectly, by implication or otherwise, that the dead 
are conscious. On the contrary, I have said that natural 
sleep is the best trope that could be selected to represent 
the quiescence and unconsciousness of the dead. The 
similitude, it is true, is not in every particular perfect, 
but as far as unconsciousness is concerned, the point of 
resemblance is appropriate ; for in perfect and profound 
sleep a man is as unconscious, for the time being, as if he 
were dead. 

Again : He misrepresents the issue in regard to God's 
declaration to Moses at the bush. I admitted that it was 
not prophetic ; but see how ingeniously he has managed 
to make a little capital out of this admission. He has 
coupled the declarations of our Saviour to the Sadducees 
with what God said to Moses, so as to make it appear 
that all that the Saviour said to the Sadducees was said 
to Moses ! What God said to Moses, I admit, was not 
prophetic ; but what did he say ? Simply, "I am the 
God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob.'* See Ex. iii, 6. Not a word here 
about the dead being raised, and that he was not the God 
of the dead but of the living. This was spoken by the 
Lord in his conversation with the Sadducees, by way of 
proving the necessity and certainty of a resurrection, as I 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 171 

have already explained. These words of Christ's are 
prophetic in their character and meaning ; and I see not 
how any one can doubt it, when the fact is considered, 
that he is declared to be the Lord both of the living and 
the dead. My friend may quibble about a contradiction 
here, but there is none, if we give the prophetic meaning 
to what he says in the twentieth chapter of Luke, which 
the context and the analogy of scripture require. 

He represents me as having called on him with great 
confidence, in the commencement of the debate, to come 
to the dictionaries as standard authorities. In this he is 
certainly mistaken. I made no such demand on him, and 
expressed no great confidence in lexicographers, so far as 
the definition of theological terms is concerned. All this, 
however, has been fully explained, and needs no farther 
notice. I do not see that we differ in regard to the credit 
due to lexicographers, if his last speech expresses his 
views on that subject. He says he has called on me to 
show, that the lexicons do not define the words of his 
proposition, according to the use of our language. No 
doubt they do ; but not according to the Bible use of these 
words two or three thousand years ago. 

He says I represent him as saying that the Greek 
language has but one noun in the neuter gender ! My 
friend must certainly have been asleep or unconscious 
when I made my last speech. 

He says I stated that pncuma would suit the adjective 
in 1 Cor. xv, 53. I did, so far as its gender was con- 
cerned. But I did not say that it was as suitable as soma, 
or some other nouns of the same gender. He says he 
stated before, that it was neuter gender. It is singular 
that such a statement has escaped my notice, and still 
more strange that he would make it, when he has hitherto 



172 DEBATE ON THE 

contended that the spirit is the man proper — a living 
and intelligent personality. Now, however, since I have 
proved that it is a noun in the neuter gender, and thereby 
subverted his doctrine based on it, he very candidly, and 
with an air of surprise, tells us that it is even so ! And 
by way of covering his retreat, he tells you that angels 
are called spirits or pneumata, and that God is a Spirit, 
and refers us to scripture to prove it ! Now just notice 
the fallacy here. Nobody denies that God is a spirit, and 
that angels are also ; but I deny that they are in the neuter 
gender. In the text to which he refers us — John iv, 24 — 
where God is said to be a spirit, the sign of the masculine 
gender is used. Come, my friend, deal fairly in stating 
the points in dispute. 

To relieve my friend of suspense, I will devote the 
remainder of my time to the promise made to the thief 
on the cross, and the rich man and Lazarus. There are 
several facts to be considered in connection with the 
promise made to the thief. Firsts — There are only two 
places where paradise is located — the third heaven and 
the new earth — see 2 Cor. xii, 2-4, Rev. ii, 7, and xxii, 
14. To neither of these did the thief go the day on which 
he died. My friend has admitted that no one ascends to 
the third heaven or to the personal presence of Christ at 
death, and no one will contend that paradise was then, or 
is now, restored. Second, — Our Lord did not, himself, 
on the day of his death, ascend to heaven, or to paradise, 
as designated by Paul. Third, — the prayer of the thief 
was, that he might be remembered when the Lord came 
into his kingdom. The Lord did not, that day, come in 
or into his kingdom, my friend himself being judge ; for 
he teaches, or at least his ministerial brethren do, that the 
kingdom did not come until the dav of Pentecost, some 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 173 

fifty days after the Saviour's death. And during the 
time he was dead they teach that his soul was in hades, 
where it remained until his resurrection. Under no 
circumstances, then, can it be shown that he entered his 
kingdom on the day of his death. 

How, then, is this promise to be explained so as to 
harmonize with these facts. Before I give you my under- 
standing of this promise, I would remark, that when the 
New Testament was written, it was not punctuated as it 
is now. The whole was one compact mass of words, with- 
out intervening spaces, commas, semi-colons, or periods. 
Its division into chapters and verses, and fts punctuation, 
are the works of uninspired men, who, in this matter, 
were governed by their own taste, and the judgment of 
its sense. We all know that pointing a composition of 
any kind may very materially modify its meaning. In 
order to convey the meaning of the writer, the sentences 
should be properly divided. Misplacing even a comma 
may do the writer great injustice. Bearing this in mind, 
allow me, my friends, to premise another fact, and that 
is, that the word translated " To-day" is semeron, which 
has several meanings, namely, to-day, this day, now, at 
present. The word might have been translated by the 
word now, or at present, with as much or more propriety 
than by the word to-day. 

The words of the Saviour, in reply to the thief, as they 
stand translated and punctuated in our common version, 
are as follows: "Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt 
thou be with me in paradise.' * According to this arrange- 
ment of the two sentences, the idea is conveyed that the 
thief went with the Saviour that day to paradise, which I 
have shown was impossible. Let us now read it with the 
comma correctly placed, and you will see how easily the 



174 DEBATE ON THE 

difficulties I have named are obviated, — " Verily I say 
unto you this day, (or now — at present) thou shalt be 
with me in paradise." This reading makes the matter 
plain, and if I mistake not, the celebrated scholar and 
critic, Griesbach, thus punctuates the passage. When, 
therefore, the Saviour comes in his kingdom, and paradise 
is restored, the thief will be with him. 

With regard to the case of the rich man and Lazarus, 
we both agree that it is a parable, but differ about what 
it represents. I have shown that my friend's construction 
of it will contradict flatly and positively many passages 
of scriptures, supersede the necessity of a resurrection, 
and a day of general judgment. In hades, where the 
parable places the rich man, there is no knowledge nor 
device. This, however, my friend says, means that there 
is no knowledge of salvation there. But it seems this 
man did know something of salvation, for he desired 
Lazarus to be sent to his five brethren with a warning. 
Here is a device. My friend says the dead carry their 
madness to hades ; but this man is not under the influence 
of that passion. In hades they are dead, but this man is 
alive. All the difficulties growing out of the popular 
interpretation of this parable are removed by explaining 
it as do several distinguished and learned men, holding 
his views of the state of the dead. Among these I will 
mention Theophylact, Lightfoot, Adam Clarke, Dr. Gill, 
James Bate, M. A., rector of Delford, and some others. 

Theophylact says, " But this parable can also be ex- 
plained in the way of allegory ; so that we may say by the 
rich man is signified the Jewish people ; for they were 
formerly rich, abounding in all divine knowledge, wisdom, 
and instruction, which are more excellent than gold and 
precious stones. And they were arrayed in purple and 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 175 

fine linen ; as they possessed a kingdom and a priesthood, 
and were themselves a royal priesthood to God. The 
purple denoted their kingdom, and the fine linen their 
priesthood ; for the Levites were clothed in sacerdotal 
vestments of fine linen, and they fed sumptuously, and 
lived splendidly, every day. Daily did they offer their 
morning and evening sacrifice, which they also called the 
continual sacrifice. But Lazarus was the Gentile people, 
poor in divine grace and wisdom, and lying before the 
gates ; for it was not permitted to the Gentiles to enter 
the house itself, because they were considered a pollution. 
Thus, in the Acts of the Apostles, we read that it was 
alleged against Paul, that he had introduced Gentiles 
into the temple, and made that holy place common or 
unclean. Moreover, these people were full of the foetid 
sores of sin, on which the impudent dogs, or devils, fed, 
who delight themselves in our sores. The Gentiles like- 
wise desired even the crumbs which fell from the tables 
of the rich ; for they were wholly destitute of the bread 
which strengthens the heart of man, and wanted even the 
smallest morsel of food ; so that the Canaanite woman, 
(Mat. xv, 27) when she was a heathen, desired to be fed 
with the crumbs. In short, the Hebrews were dead unto 
God, and their bones, which could not be moved to do 
good, were perished. Lazarus also (I mean the Gentile 
people,) was dead in sin, and the envious Jews, who were 
dead in sins, did actually burn in a flame of jealousy, as 
saith the apostle, on account of the Gentiles being received 
into the faith, and because that those who had before been 
a poor and despised Gentile race, were now in the bosom 
of Abraham, the father of nations, and justly, indeed, 
were they thus received." 
James Bate, M. A., rector of Delford, says : "We will 



176 DEBATE ON THE 

suppose, then, the the rich man who fared so sumptuously 
to be the Jew, so amply enriched with the heavenly trea- 
sure of divine revelation. The poor beggar who lay at his 
gate, in so miserable a plight, was the poor Gentile, now 
reduced to the last degree of want, in regard to religious 
knowledge. The crumbs which fell from the rich man's 
table, and which the beggar was so desirous of picking up, 
were such fragments of patriarchal and Jewish traditions, 
as their traveling philosophers were able to pick up with 
their utmost care and diligence. And those philosophers 
were also the dogs that licked the sores of heathendom, 
and endeavored to supply the wants of divine revelation 
by such schemes and hypotheses, concerning the nature 
of the gods, and the obligation of moral duties, as (due 
allowance for their ignorance and frailties) did no small 
honor to human nature, and yet thereby plainly showed, 
how little a way unassisted reason could go, without some 
supernatural help, as one of the wisest of them confessed. 
About one and the same time, the beggar dies, and is 
carried by the angels (i. e., God's spiritual messengers to 
mankind, ) into Abraham's bosom ; that is, he is engrafted 
into the church of God. And the rich man also dies and 
is buried. He dies what we call a political death. His 
dispensation ceases. He is rejected from being any longer 
the peculiar son of God. The people whom he parabol- 
ically represents, are miserably destroyed by the Romans, 
and the wretched remains of them, driven into exile over 
the face of the earth, were vagabonds, with a kind of 
mark set upon them, like Cain, their prototype, for a like 
crime ; and which mark may, perhaps, be their adherence 
to the law. Whereby it came amazingly to pass, tnat 
these people, though dispersed, yet still dwell alone and 
separate, not being reckoned among the nations, as Balaam 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 177 

foretold. The rich man being reduced to this state of 
misery, complains bitterly of his hard fate, but is told by 
Abraham that he slipped his opportunity, while Lazarus 
laid hold on his, and now receives the comfort of it. The 
Jew complains of the want of more evidence, to convince 
his countrymen, the five brethren, and would fain have 
Lazarus sent from the dead to convert them. But Abra- 
ham tells him, that if their own scriptures cannot convince 
them of their error, neither tvould they be persuaded though 
one rose from the dead. And exactly so it proved in the 
event. For this parable was delivered towards the end 
of the third year of our Lord's ministry, and in the fourth, 
or following year of it, the words put into the mouth of 
Abraham, as the conclusion of the parable, are mosc 
literally verified by our Lord's raising another Lazarus 
from the dead. And we may presume that the beggar 
had the fictitious name of Lazarus given him in the para- 
ble, not without some reason, since the supposed request 
of the rich man was fully answered by our Lord's raising 
another, and a real Lazarus, from the dead. But what 
was the consequence ? Did this notorious miracle con- 
vince the rich man's brethren ? No, truly. His visit to 
them from the dead was so far from convincing them, that 
they actually consulted together, that they might put Laz- 
arus also to death ; because that, by reason of him, many 
of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus. So much for 
the true sense of this parable." 

Dr. Lightfoot, in his exposition of this parable, says : 
"Whoever believes this not to be a parable, but a true 
story, let him believe also those little friars, whose trade 
it is to show the monuments at Jerusalem to pilgrims, and 
point exactly to the place where the house of the ' rich 
glutton* stood. Most accurate keepers of antiquity, 



178 STATE OF THE 

indeed ! who, after so many hundreds of years, such 
overthrows of Jerusalem, such devastations and changes, 
can take out of the rubbish the place of so private a 
house, and such a one, too, that never had any being, but 
merely in parable. And that it was a parable, not only 
the consent of all expositors may assure us, but the thing 
itseif speaks it. 

" The main scope and design of it seems this — to hint 
the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they 
had Moses and the prophets, did not believe them — nay, 
would not believe, though one (even Jesus) arose from 
the dead. For that conclusion of the parable abundantly 
evinceth what it aimed at : If they hear not Moses and the 
prophets," &c. — Heb. and Talm. Exerc. in Luke xvi, 19. 

Whitby. " That this is only a parable, and not a real 
history of what was actually done, is evident : 1. Because 
we find this very parable in the Gemara Bahylonicum, 
whence it is cited by Mr. Sherringham, in the preface to 
his Joma. 2. From the circumstances of it, viz., the rich 
man's lifting up his eyes in hell, and seeing Lazarus in 
Abraham* s bosom, his discourse with Abraham, his com- 
plaint of being tormented with flames, and that Lazarus 
might be sent to cool his tongue ; and if all this be con- 
fessedly parable, why should the rest, which is the very 
parable in the Gemara, be accounted history ? " Annot. 
in loc. 

Wakefield, ver. 23, " In, the grave; en to hade: and, 
conformably to this representation, he is spoken of as 
having a body, ver. 24. It must be remembered, that 
hades nowhere means hell — gehenna — in any author 
whatsoever, sacred or profane ; and also, that our Lord 
is giving his hearers a parable, (Matt, xii, 34,) and not a 
piece of real history. To them who regard the narration 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 179 

as a reality, it must stand as an unanswerable argument 
for the purgatory of the papists. The universal meaning 
of hades is the state of death ; because the term sepul- 
chrum or grave, is not strictly applicable to such as have 
been consumed by fire, &c. See ver. 30." Note in loc. 

Dr. Adam Clarke remarks on Matt, v, 26 — " Let it be 
remembered, that by the general consent of all, (except 
the basely interested, ) no metaphor is ever to be produced 
in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our 
eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express 
evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls.' ' 

Bishop Lowth says — " Parable is that kind of allegory 
which consists of a continued narration of fictitious or 
accommodated events, applied to the illustration of some 
important truth." 

Dr. Gill makes a two-fold application, and supposes 
it may apply to the torment of wicked Jews after death, 
or to calamities that were to come upon them in this 
world. He says : 

" The rich man died : It may also be understood of the 
political and ecclesiastical death of the Jewish people, 
which lay in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, and 
of the temple, and in the abolition of the temple worship,' 
and of the whole ceremonial law : a Loa?mni was written 
upon their church state, and the covenant between God 
and them was broken ; the gospel was removed from them, 
which was as death, as the return of it, and their call by 
it, will be as life from the dead ; as well as their place 
and nation, their civil power and authority, were taken 
away from them by the Romans, and a death of afflictions, 
by captivity and calamities of every kind, have attended 
them ever since. 

" In hell — in torments: This may regard the vengeance 



180 DEBATE ON THE 

of God on the Jews, at the destruction of Jerusalem, when 
a fire was kindled against their land, and burned to the 
lowest hell, and consumed the earth with her increase, 
and set on fire the foundations of the mountains ; and the 
whole land became brimstone, salt, and burning ; and 
they were rooted out of it in anger, wrath, and great 
indignation." 

Here you have, my friends, an array of talent, learning, 
and piety favorable to the view I take of this parable, 
which all will agree, is entitled to respect and considera- 
tion. And when it is known that none of these commen- 
tators held my views of the intermediate state, but the 
contrary, and ranked high in the so-called evangelical and 
orthodox sects of the times and countries in which they 
lived, it is a strong presumption of the fact, that the 
parable cannot be interpreted as my friend, Mr. C, sup- 
poses, without contradicting other portions of scripture. 

[Time out.~\ 



MR. CONNELLY'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

When I took my seat, I was about introducing an 
argument founded on the laws of God, against necro- 
mancy, or consulting the dead. I have already presented 
a number of texts, in which the consulting of the dead is 
forbidden. I will then state my argument thus : God 
has enacted laws against consulting the dead. He does 
not enact laws against non-entities; therefore, the dead 
were consulted in those days. This could not have been 
done if man is all body, or if the dead have no knowledge 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 181 

at all ; or if they are unconscious. Hence God lias recog- 
nized the existence of separate conscious spirits. For 
these laws have their foundation in the fact that they 
exist, and may be, or have been consulted, unless we can 
believe that God would enact laws, accompanied by the 
most awful sanctions, against that which neither has, or 
can have, an existence. Before we leave this point, Ave 
will call your attention to another text, which presents 
this matter in a very clear light, and also shows that what 
are called in scripture familiar spirits, are spirits of the 
dead. " And when they shall say unto you, seek unto 
them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that 
peep and that mutter : should not a people seek unto 
their God? for the living to the dead?" Isaiah viii, 19. 
This scripture needs no comment, as it clearly shows 
the existence of that custom against which the laws of 
God were enacted. 

We will now notice some things in the last speech of 
my friend. He says that it is the duty of a debater to 
state the issues between himself and his opponent fairly 
and intelligibly. And he compliments himself for his 
fairness and candor throughout this discussion. It would, 
perhaps, have been as well if he had left that to those 
who have listened to him. But he complains of me for 
misrepresenting the points at issue. Whether his com- 
plaint is just or not, I will leave to the judgment of those 
who have heard us, and to those who may afterwards 
read the debate. But what are his specifications. First, 
by stating that he said sleep is applied to the dead, because 
there is a waking or resurrection, and concluding, there- 
fore, that it is not because they are unconscious, from his 
own showing. Now, I appeal to you, my friends, one 
and all, to say for yourselves whether Dr. Field did not so 



182 DEBATE ON THE 

state when he first introduced the term from the fifteenth 
chapter of 1st Corinthians. I am not mistaken in this 
matter, as a reference to the notes of the reporter will 
show, and as will be seen when the debate is published. 
I noted it at the time, and made some remarks about it 
in another speech. Of course the doctor has a right to 
back off from any thing that he has said, or give up any 
position he has taken. And would it not have accorded 
as well with his episode — his self-compliment for candor 
and fairness, to have just said he was mistaken in that 
statement; that he had not perceived that it refuted a 
large number of his proof-texts, and thus taken it back ? 
For with that statement before us you must perceive that 
my conclusion is just. If sleep is applied to the dead 
because there is a waking, it is surely not for something 
else. But will the doctor permit us to ask him again, how 
it is known that there is no knowledge in sleep ? No. It 
is too self-evident with him to admit of proof ? Well, then, 
consciousness is the power of knowing one's thoughts ; 
will he, then, affirm that in sleep there is no power of 
knowing ? We will see. 

Second. He says I have managed his admission that 
God's declaration to Moses is not prophetic, so ingeniously, 
as to make it appear that all the Saviour said to the Sad- 
ducees was said by Moses. It may have so appeared to 
him, for any thing I know ; but I am sure it did not so 
appear to this intelligent audience. I did, however, make 
it. appear very plainly, I think, that the Saviour's state- 
ment, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the 
living, is an existing truth, as literally true then as it ever 
will be. But the doctor says this is all prophetic, both in 
character and meaning. But he saw plainly that this 
position contradicted most pointedly what God had said 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 183 

to Moses ; and attempts to obscure it, by attaching to it 
in advance the epithet quibble. A beautiful illustration 
of that candor and fairness of which he boasts. The 
contradiction here is too glaring to be obscured by this 
epithet. Look at it, my friends. " God is the God of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," who were dead — dead to 
men — for they had gone out of this world. This is an 
existing truth. And yet he is their God only in prospect 
— prophetically. For the statement of the Saviour, that 
he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, the doctor 
says, is prophetic in its character and meaning. The dead, 
then, have no God yet — they have one only in prospect ! 
As my friend, Dr. Field, has cited no evidence of his 
boasted fairness in stating the points and issues in debate, 
but his own conscience, we will give a few specifications 
from his last speech. You remember that he has repeat- 
edly called on me for an express "thus saith the Lord" 
that the dead are conscious ; insisting that where the 
words are not found the ideas are not to be expected ; 
and that this was the boasted position of my brethren. 
To show that this was all ad captandum cant, I stated 
that, according to this demand, it could not be proved that 
the saints are conscious after the resurrection ; nor could 
it be proved, in so many words, that the Holy Spirit, 
angels, or God himself, are conscious, intelligent beings. 
At this he greatly wonders, and represents me as saying 
that it could not be proved at all, not even by equivalent 
words, that God and angels are intelligent beings ! How 
could he have mistaken what I said ? But he has admitted 
nere all I wish to draw out of him by these remarks, 
that a proposition may be proved by equivalent words ; 
that beings may be proved to be conscious and intelli- 
gent by being represented as acting and speaking. And 



184 DEBATE ON THE 

you must judge of my success in thus proving my 
proposition. 

He says that the declarations, words, and phrases of 
scripture adduced in support of a proposition, no matter 
in what words it is couched, must be equivalent in mean- 
ing to the words of the proposition, was once the position 
of the church of which I am a member. So it was, and 
so it is stiil. If it will be of any benefit to my friend, I 
will inform him that we have not departed from our origi- 
nal ground on this subject, his declaration to the contrary 
notwithstanding. 

Again. He had stated, as you remember, that the 
statement of Solomon, that the dead know not any thing, 
was without limitation, and consequently could not mean 
any knowledge of the means of salvation to the dead, as 
is my position on this text. To show that every expres- 
sion in the scriptures must be subject to the context, and 
limited by it, I cited the remark in the second verse, " as 
is the good so is the sinner," which is as unlimited as the 
other, and hence, according to his statement, there would 
be no difference between these characters in any respect. 
But he represents me as introducing this to show that 
Solomon did not mean what he said, when he stated that 
the dead know not any thing ! How fair, how candid 
this is. But he says if I had read all the verse, it would 
have explained what was meant. The necessity of con^ 
suiting the context was the very thing I was trying to 
show, as you all understood. 

He says I try to make Solomon say that madness is in 
the heart of men after they die. There is no effort needed 
on my part to aid Solomon, for he declares the fact most 
emphatically, and that, too, without the doctor's emenda- 
tion of his language, or without any contradiction, by 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 185 

stating that their love, envy, and hatred are perished, 
when these words are taken in their connection. Solomon 
closes the preceding verse by saying, that " the memory 
of them is forgotten ; " and then continues, " also their 
love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished." 
That is, as the context shows, no longer remembered by 
the living, and not as the doctor would have us believe, 
that these passions have no existence. They have gone 
from the world — they have no longer any portion forever 
in any thing under the sun. There is no remembrance 
either of themselves or of their manifestations of love, 
envy, or hatred, although, as before stated, these passions 
continue with them, at least it is said madness is in them. 

We lay no particular stress on the word that, in this 
text. Indeed, the sense would be fully as clear if that 
was not used at all. But we need only look at the doctor's 
position on this word to see the vagueness of his concep- 
tions of language, and his confusion at seeing his whole 
scheme of interpretation on this text — his main pillar — 
so completely thwarted. 

He says that has the phrase while they live for its ante- 
cedent ! Well, let us see how that will do. Every word 
relating to an antecedent must mean all that the antecedent 
means ; and the antecedent may be substituted for it, and 
the sense be preserved. Now, test the doctor's position 
by these principles, and the sentence would read thus : 
Madness is in their heart while they live, and after while 
they live they go to the dead. This, as you perceive, 
would make utter nonsense of the whole text. 

He was greatly surprised that I understood his position 

on chap, xv, 1 Corinthians, as representing me as holding 

that there was but one noun in the Greek language in the 

neuter gender. But if there is any other point in what 

16 



186 DEBATE ON THE 

be says about tbe noun to be supplied, I confess I cannoti 
see it. I bad not stated that there was no other noun 
that would agree in gender with the adjective. But that 
no other noun but soma could be supplied, showing that 
some would not do without violating the plainest rules of 
the language, and that others violated the context. And 
did not suppose that any one could be so stupid as to 
think the point here was simply a question of gender. 
But in this, it seems, I was mistaken, for the doctor says, 
he only stated that pneuma would suit the adjective in 
gender. P it note here, another proof of that fairness of 
which he is o conscious, and of which I am so destitute ! 
He quoted ti s text to prove that the spirit is corruptible. 
Assuming the meaning to be, this corruptible spirit must 
put on incorruption. But when I showed the fallacy of 
this, then he only said pneuma would suit the adjective 
in gender. 

He thinks it strange, that he has no note of, or does not 
remember my statement that pneuma is of the neuter 
gender. His memory seems to be bad. But it is stranger 
still, he thinks, that I should admit it, as in his estimation 
it subverts the doctrine of my proposition ! But how 
does that fact affect my proposition. Spirits cannot be 
intelligent, he thinks, because the term applied to them 
is neuter gender. That is because there is no distinction 
of sex among spirits, they cannot, therefore, be conscious 
or intelligent ! ! But I have before shown that God is said 
to be a spirit : and angels are spirits, and hence, according 
to the doctor, they are neither conscious or intelligent. But 
he says, he admits that they are spirits, but denies they 
are in the neuter gender ! With him then pneuma is 
sometimes in the neuter gender, and sometimes in the 
masculine, for he says in John iv, 24, the sign is of the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 187 

masculine, where God is said to be a spirit! He that 
would make such a statement should blush to claim to 
be a scholar. For such an assertion from a scholar is 
ridiculous beyond description. 

Will Dr. Field tell us what the sign of the neuter 
gender in Greek is, when there is no article before the 
noun ? The truth is, my friends, that the word pncuma 
is always in the neuter gender, whether applied to God, 
his spirit, angels, or the spirits of men, so that there is 
no escape from the absurdity into which the doctor's 
objection unavoidedly leads him. 

He has given a long dissertation on the promise of the 
Saviour to the thief, and an imposing array of facts ; 
some of which we will notice. He says, there is only 
two places where Paradise is located. The third 
heaven and the new earth. But he gives us no evidence 
that this is a fact. It is true, he gives two instances 
where the word occurs, as he thinks, in two different 
meanings. But let this be true or not, it certainly 
cannot prove that this word has no other meaning. This 
word originally means a park or garden, and is applied 
in the Bible to various places of delight. By the LXX it 
is applied to the garden of Eden. In the New Testament 
it occurs but three times, I believe, and in each occurrence 
in a different sense. In the passage before us it is used 
with reference to the state of the righteous in hades, and ■ 
consequently his second fact has no force in it. His third 
fact assumes that the Saviour proposed to the thief the 
precise form of his request, of which there is no evidence. 
Fourth, the punctuation of the Bible is the work of 
uninspired men, this is true, and consequently it is not 
infallible. But there are certain principles founded in the 
structure and the meaning of the language which should 



188 DEBATE ON THE 

guide us in this respect. That the doctor in his renderi g 
has disregarded this, will be evident by noting this fact, 
the word to-day (sc?nera) is an adverb and must either 
qualify the verb say, or shall be ; now the question is, 
which of these words is qualified by it, and to determine 
this we must determine which have need to be qualified — 
which would be obscure without it. The doctor's rendering 
makes it qualify I say ; now I would ask, could there be 
any doubt as to the time he spoke, that made it necessary 
to use a qualifying word to explain it, certainly not. But 
if he had said, " Thou shalt be with me in Paradise/' the 
time would have been obscure, hence, it is necessary to 
punctuate the text as it is in the Bible, that the qualifying 
word may qualify that which would be otherwise obscure. 
[ Time out.] 



DR. FIELD'S ELEVENTH REPLY. 

Brethern and Friends : 

We are told that God has recognized the existence of the 
spirits of the dead, their consciousness and intelligence by 
enacting laws against necromancy or consulting the dead. 
My friend says, that the familiar spirits of the Old Testa- 
ment, were the spirits of the dead. If penal laws against 
necromancy prove that the dead have knowledge and can 
communicate information to the living, the laws enacted 
against the worship of Moloch, Baal, and other gods of 
the heathen world, equally prove that there were such 
beings in existence, capable of rendering assistance to 
their worshipers. Whereas it is declared that they are 
imaginary beings, who can neither see nor hear. The 
address of Elijah to the prophets of Baal, demonstrably 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 189 

proves that there was no such a being in existence. 
Necromancy was a deception, a fraud, upon the living, 
whose credulity might be imposed on by a class of people 
who made their living by trickery. Is it at all strange, 
my friends, that God should enact laws to suppress 
frauds ? Have not all civilized nations recognized the 
justice and necessity of such laws ? Has not God forbidden 
image and idol worship, and yet these dumb idols aro 
nothing: ? 

That there is an order of beings in existence, called 
devils or demons, no one will deny, but it will be time 
enough to speak of them when it is proven that they are 
disembodied human spirits. 

We have, in the argument built on the laws against 
necromancy, an indorsement of the doctrine of Emanuel 
Swedenborg on that subject ; if I am not greatly mistaken, 
before the discussion ends, my friend will, for consistency 
sake, have to admit the necromancy of our day, known as 
the "spirit rappings." 

I repeat the statement, that I said nothing in my 
remarks on the fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians to 
authorize the conclusion that the dead are conscious. I 
know what I said, and have not the most distant idea of 
retracting it. I said that from the first death there is 
to be awaking up or a resurrection, and here it was 
tropically represented by sleep, which is a state of uncon- 
sciousness, and in this point of view it more aptly 
illustrates death than any other figure that could be 
selected. But my friend insists upon it, that we are 
conscious in sleep, because we are alive and have the 
power to resume our thoughts ! But my friends, this is 
all fallacious. What signifies the poiuer of knowing our 
thoughts, when we have no thoughts, and cannot exercise 



190 DEBATE ON THE 

the power ? Have you not often slept so soundly that a 
thief might enter your room, and rifle your drawers and 
pockets without your knowing it ? In that case, of what 
avail is the power when it is dormant and inactive ? Let 
me ask you, my friends, if you have never seen live men 
totally unconscious for many days ? In some diseases I 
have witnessed a total suspension of all intellection, and 
the patient could no more be roused or made to under- 
stand, than if he were dead. 

How often have men been rescued from water in a 
drowning condition — in a state of suspended animation, 
and when restored to their senses, they have attested the 
truth of my position. If, then, a Vive man can be 
insensible and unconscious, how in the name of reason 
and common sense can a dead man be as knowing and 
intelligent as though he were alive and in perfect health ? 
If the dead know no more than a man in a profound and 
complete sleep, it is quite certain my friend will make 
nothing out of his cavils about the use of the trope in 
question. 

But I am asked, if sleep is applied to the dead because 
they will wake, how can it be for something else ? Why 
not ? May there not be other points of resemblance ? 
Such as unconsciousness, resting, ceasing to think, &c. ? 
Again he inquires, how I know, that in sleep I know 
nothing? This is truly an abstruse question, more so, 
than some of the problems of Euclid. It may be answered 
by asking another. How does my friend know when he 
is asleep? By what rule does he decide this question ? 
Perhaps his answer will be mine. After his fashion of 
reasoning, he deduces the conclusion, from what I said 
about the prophetic declaration of the Saviour, that 
the dead have no God, as yet, they have one only in 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 191 

prospect ! Have I not stated repeatedly that they have 
a God ? That Jesus Christ is Lord, both of the dead and 
living. See Rom. xiv, 7-9. And that he will judge 
the living and dead at his appearing and kingdom. 2 Tim. 
iv, 1 . Furthermore, I stated explicitly in my comments 
on Luke xx, that the dead are raised, was prophetic. 
How much plainer does he wish me to make it. 

He claims that I have made an important admission in 
his favor, namely, that a proposition may be proved from 
the Bible by words and phrases equivalent to those in 
which it is couched. How can this admission help him ? 
What would be words equivalent to those of his propo- 
sition ? He set out to prove that after death the human 
spirit continues conscious until the resurrection. Now, 
equivalent words would be such as these : when a man 
dies, his never-dying spirit leaves his body, and still lives, 
in the full possession of knowledge and intelligence, until 
the body is restored to life. Has he produced such words 
as these ? No, verily — but passages of a symbolic and 
parabolic import, isolated expressions, and narrations 
irrelevant to the question, or of doubtful import, which, 
if construed as he supposes, would flatly contradict many 
of the plainest statements of the Bible. His proposition 
itself contradicts the Bible. 

What has he made, my friends, by his criticism of my 
remarks on the pronoun that and its antecedent. Nothing, 
on his own showing. The antecedent in this case is the 
subject, the sense, and not necessarily the words. Now, 
let us try it. " Madness is in their hearts while they live, 
and after they have lived with this madness in their hearts, 
they go to the dead. Is there any thing nonsenical in 
this ? But I presume that, on this point, as on some 
others, he is resolved to have the last word. 



192 DEBATE ON THE 

My friend, Mr. Connelly, professes, I suppose, to be a 
critic in the Greek language, and he thinks I ought to 
blush for my remarks on the signs of the genders. For 
the life of me, I cannot apprehend the precise point he 
makes on the question of gender. He has evidently 
got into deep water by dabbling in the Greek, and he 
seems to be quite impatient because he cannot get out 
with the ease he expected. Now, my friends, I do not 
profess to be %ery erudite, but I think, however, that I 
will be able to confound him with his own learning — 
remembering the caution of the great American philos- 
opher — 

" Large boats may venture more, 
But little boats must keep near shore." 

What does he mean by saying that I ought to blush for 
making the assertion, that in John iv, 24, where God is 
said to be a spirit, the sign of the masculine is used ? 
Will he say that God, in this passage, is in the neuter 
gender ? Will he ? Tneuma ho Thcos. Is God in the 
neuter gender in this expression ? But he asks me to say 
what the sign of the neuter gender in Greek is, when 
there is no article before the noun. Well, as it is impor- 
tant that he should know, I reply first, by the adjective 
which qualifies it, and second, by its termination, or the 
rules of its declension. 

I never affirmed, my friends, that all spirits are in the 
neuter gender. No such thing. My assertion was limited 
to human spirits. The dispute here is not about the gen- 
der of angels, the Holy Spirit, and God, but the spirit of 
man. This point has been overlooked, and some how or 
another, obscured. I showed that the spirit of man, which 
he has all along contended was the man proper, is a noun 
in the neuter gender, and that it is not an intelligent 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 193 

rational, liviug entity, independent of the body. This be 
has not denied. Here he was fairly caught in the meshes 
of his own Greek net and vanquished. But in order to 
extricate himself, he tries to divert your attention from the 
true issue by contending that God and angels arc spirits ! 
And he would make you believe that my logic would place 
them in the neuter gender also ! 

There is much in my friend's last speech, the force of 
which I cannot perceive. I cannot answer declamation. 
He must make definite and distinct points, if he wishes 
me to respond to what he says. 

He says that I have given no evidence that paradise is 
located in but two places — the third heaven and the new 
earth. Have I not ? Did I not prove it demonstrably by 
two quotations, and the only two in the New Testament 
which speak of its locality ? But lie says that the word 
originally meant a garden, or park, and is applied in the 
Bible to various places of delight. Will he be so good as 
to inform us to which of these places of delight the thief 
went — for, according to the Old Testament they were all 
on this earth. But he assumes, without the least shadow 
of evidence, whatever, that in the twenty-third of Luke 
it is used with reference to the state of the righteous in 
hades. This he must prove by better testimony than his 
naked assertion. 

There is another point in this connection which I will 
notice. He assumes that the adverb to-day (semeron) 
refers to the time when the thief would go to paradise, 
and not to the time when the Lord made the promise to 
him. This is the question. I have given several incon- 
trovertible reasons why he did not and could not go to 
paradise the day on which he died. Has he answered 
them ? He has not. Now, we all know that this form of 
17 



194 DEBATE ON THE 

speech is not unusual even in our day. "I say to you 
now " • — I say to you at this time, or to-day. At the time 
of our Saviour's crucifixion, this idiom was peculiarly 
appropriate. It was the day of his humiliation, when 
about to die in the hands of his enemies, under the odium 
of public opinion. No one looking at the circumstances 
in which he was placed, could reasonably hope to be heard 
and comforted by him then. But even in this trying 
hour he heard the prayer and made a promise to the 
penitent thief. In view of these facts, I regard this form 
of speech as fully warranted by the occasion. 

Having noticed every thing in my friend's last speech 
worthy of attention, I will now introduce other texts of 
scripture subversive of his doctrine. Isaiah, speaking of 
the resurrection of the righteous, says, "Awake and sing 
ye that dwell in dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, 
and the earth shall cast out her dead," ch. xxvi, 19. Here 
the dead are said to be in the dust of the earth, from 
whence they are to be called up in the resurrection. Not 
a word about their being in heaven, or in a spirit land. 
Again, Dan. xii, 2, " And many that sleep in the dust of 
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some 
to shame and everlasting contempt." The same fact is 
here distinctly asserted. They are not only represented 
as being asleep, but we are told where they sleep. Our 
Lord speaks of the dead, as being in their graves, where 
they will hear his voice, and come forth. He never once 
intimates that they are any where else. Not a syllable 
about their being in a place somewhere in the centre of 
the earth, or midway between earth and heaven. 

There is another fact corroborative of my position in 
regard to the dead, which I will here mention. God sent 
a message to Hezekiah, that he must set his house in 



STATE OF TIIE DEAD. 195 

order, for he should die, and not live. He was a righteous 
man, and as well prepared to die as any man at that age 
of the world, but he wept sore, and prayed to God to 
spare his life. God granted his prayer, and added to his 
life fifteen years. On the reception of this news, he gave 
utterance to the following expressions of gratitude and 
joy : " Behold, for peace I had great bitterness ; but 
thou hast, in love to my soul, delivered it from the pit of 
corruption. For the grave cannot praise thee, death cannot 
celebrate thee ; they that go down to the pit cannot hope 
for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee 
as I do this day." Isaiah xxxviii, 17-19. It will require 
more ingenuity than my friend can bring to his aid to 
evade the force of this language. There is no avoiding 
the conclusion, that this king expected at death to go to 
the grave, and no where else. The idea of his soul still 
living and praising God, was out of the question. Had 
he entertained the modern views of the immortality of the 
soul, and that death would translate him to paradise, 
instead of weeping, he would have rejoiced. He would 
not have been so much distressed at the idea of getting 
rid of this troublesome world. We have a great many 
Hezekiahs at the present day, who, notwithstanding they 
profess to believe in going to paradise at death, when the 
messenger comes they are terribly affrighted, and employ 
all the medical science and skill around them to prevent 
him from performing his kind office ! They will strenu- 
ously contend that the saints go personally to Christ at 
death, and join in the songs of the redeemed, and wear 
the victor's crown, but when it comes to giving up the 
ghost, and this ungodly world, they prefer to stay here and 
suffer. Let any one read the obituaries, daily announcing 
the departure of some pious and happy spirit to glory, 



196 DEBATE ON THE 

and then look at the habiliments of mourning worn by the 
relatives of the deceased, and you have a standing contra- 
diction between profession and practice. Why mourn and 
lament that our relatives have gone to paradise ? What 
an inconsistency ! [Timeout.] 



MR. CONNELLY'S TWELFTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

Before we review the doctor's last speech, we will 
note his position on the case of the rich man and Lazarus. 
This would seem to be almost a work of supererogation, 
as he has given us the old Universalian position of this 
text, which has been refuted a thousand and one times. 
Conscious of the vulnerability of this position, he reads 
an extract from the Bible Examiner, published by his 
brother Stone, in which two views are expressed, seeming 
to say, if one will not do, surely the other will. Of course, 
both cannot be correct, though it is evident that both are 
wrong. But he still insists that it represents the reversed 
condition of the Jews and Gentiles, and not the state of 
the dead, as I have shown. And he asks us to believe 
this for the following extraordinary reasons : First, my 
view flatly contradicts many passages of scripture which 
he has quoted. These have all been harmonized, I think, 
to the satisfaction of all who have not determined to be 
blind. This is quite unsatisfactory to the doctor, however, 
for he says the rich man had a knowledge of salvation. 
And is it possible that he is about to fall in with Mr. Fer- 
guson, of whom he spoke, on Friday, as having advanced 
some singular things with regard to the dead ? This will 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 197 

do pretty fair for modern progressive Universalism. It 
must seem to you, my friends, singular enough, that the 
rich man should have knowledge of salvation, and yet the 
dead know not any thing ! But Dr. Field says this man 
was not dead. The declaration of the Bible, then, that 
the rich man also died, and was buried, is, in his estima- 
tion, untrue. Second — Dr. Gill, Rev. James Bate, of the 
Church of England, Theophylact, a Greek visionary, of 
the Origen school, who believed that every word in the 
Bible had a mountain of meaning, think that this is its 
meaning. And, third, these divines say there was a fabu- 
lous history existing at that time, in which this story was 
found. This is an overwhelming array of evidence, which 
would be hard to meet. The Saviour never founds his 
parables on fables or fiction, but on facts. If, however, 
this story really existed, of which there is much doubt, 
it was designed to present the condition of the dead ; the 
Saviour's using it for the same purpose must be regarded 
as indorsing its correctness ; for we repeat, what we said 
before, that the Saviour founds his parables on facts, and 
not on fictions. "We stated, when we first introduced this 
text, that no other reasonable view could be taken of it 
than the one we have given ; and the doctor, with all his 
ingenuity, aided by the wonderful discovery that man is 
all flesh, blood, and breath, has not been able to shed any 
new light on the subject, but has been compelled to give 
the old and absurd position, that it represents the condi- 
tion of the Jews and Gentiles. Absurd, as will appear 
from the following facts. First : if these characters are 
taken nationally, the five brethren must be five nations, 
and as the rich man is made the representative of the 
Jewish nation, the five nations represented by the five 
brethren must be children of Abraham. Second : the 



198 DEBATE OX THE 

Jews and Gentiles include the entire race. Who, then, 
are the five brethren ? Where are they found ? The 
docter's position evidently includes the whole world, and 
the rest of mankind. 

The third position assumes, that it is an impossibility 
for a Gentile to become a Jew, contrary to the law of 
Moses on that subject ; and also, that it is impossible 
for a Jew to be converted, except by the law of Moses ; 
thus excluding them from the proclamation of the gospel, 
contrary to the practice of the apostles — or rather that 
the Jews cannot be converted at all, for there is an impas- 
sable gulf between them, so that no one can pass from 
the one to the other. There is no changing of conditions 
there. Will the doctor harmonize these facts with his 
view as readily as I have his difficulties with mine? Will 
he harmonize them at all ? We will see. 

By presenting in this striking manner, the awful and 
unchangeable condition of the unrighteous, the Saviour 
evidently designed to warn the covetous. This the con- 
nection clearly shows ; for, whether it be regarded as 
parable or fact, the scene is laid beyond death. And as 
all the facts and customs from which the Saviour draws 
his parables, are fairly represented, this must be regarded 
as presenting the true state of the dead before the resur- 
rection. 

My friend thinks that the fact that God enacted penal 
laws against necromancy, no more proves the intelligence 
of the dead, than his laws against idolatry does the intelli- 
gence of the idols. This objection is founded upon a miscon- 
ception of the whole system of the idolatry of the ancients. 
Their religion was evidently founded in the belief of the 
existence of some supreme power above their own, which 
they usually ascribed to the spirits of their departed heroes^ 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 199 

The idols, then, were not their gods, but simply their 
images. This the apostle Paul substantially shows, when 
he says they worshiped the creature rather than the 
Creator, Rom. i ; so that their idolatry itself seems to be 
a species of necromancy. The fact that their gods could 
not aid them, cannot prove that they were not consulted. 
That this was carried to a qreat extreme amono- them, 
that they sometimes deified inferior animals, and even 
inanimate objects, is not to be denied. But its foundation 
was evidently as we have stated. We have some specific 
cases where communications have been received from the 
dead, which we will present in due time. We have been 
repeatedly told that the belief of separate spiritual exist- 
ence is a figment of heathen mythology. This case shows 
that it is as old as the law of Moses. Indeed, its belief 
extends as far back as the history of our race. God has 
never contradicted it by his revelations, but has, as we 
have seen, at various times recognized its existence. Wc 
have shown that the Saviour indorsed it, by giving a 
partial description of spirit. The apostle Paul also 
confesses his faith in the doctrine, and that, too, under 
the influence of the Holy Spirit. For, upon a certain 
occasion, when it was necessary to make choice between 
the Sadducees and Pharisees, he said he was a Pharisee, 
the son of a Pharisee. And that there might be no doubt 
as to what point of doctrine the apostle held with the 
Pharisees, the writer adds : * l For the Sadducees say there 
is no resurrection, neither angel or spirit : but the Phar- 
isees confess both." Acts xxiii, 8. 

The doctor seems to be making some advances on the 
twentieth chapter of Luke, for he seems to be getting 
that nearly right, if he will only let it remain so. As you 
remember, he first took the position that the present tense 



200 DJSLBATJ3 ON THE 

was used for the future. I admitted that such was some- 
times the case in prophetic language, and called on him 
to say if the words of the Lord to Moses were prophetic. 
He was constrained to confess they were not ; but fearing 
that this concession would be carried beyond that declara- 
tion, he repeats the passage, adding, that Christ's words 
to the Sadducees were the same, both in character and 
meaning. But seeing himself that this would necessarily 
contradict what the Lord here states, that God is not the 
God of the dead, but of the living, as well as what he 
himself had so repeatedly declared, he thought to frighten 
us from exposing it, by prestigmatizing it with quibble. 
But not succeeding in this, he now restricts the prophetic 
sense to the phrase, that the dead arc raised, and asks 
what plainer I wish him to make it ? No plainer, doctor, 
that will do ; that I said at the first, and that the Lord 
proves that the dead will be raised, by first proving that 
there is something to be raised. My argument, then, upon 
this text is admitted. Very well. 

Whether we have succeeded in proving our position in 
equivalent words, I am willing to commit to the judgment 
of those who hear, and those who may read. 

He says the word that, in Eccl. ix, refers to the sense, 
and not to the words. Will he tell us Iioav we can get the 
sense without the words. But what is the sense, accord- 
ing to his rendering. It makes Solomon, the wise man, 
unfold to us the singular fact, that after men live they 
die. To use his own words, if this logic will suit you, my 
friends, you are very easily pleased. 

The doctor thinks that I have evidently got into deep 
water. This, no doubt, is his honest conviction, founded 
on sad experience ; for, in his attempts to follow me, it 
seems that he has come so near sinking, that he cannot 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 201 

see above the waves — he cannot see the points I make. 
There might, perhaps, have been some hope of him, if lie 
had learned the maxim of the great American philosopher 
sooner ; but, as is too frequently the case with the rash 
and adventurous, the lesson of experience comes only in 
time to develop his calamity. But as deep as the water 
is, he has yet to show that I have gone beyond my depth. 
He asks, what I mean by saying, he ought to blush 
for his remarks on gender. Well, as he seems a little dull 
of apprehension, and complains that I do not make my 
points plain, he must pardon me for being somewhat 
plain. This, then, is what I mean. That any one, who 
would affirm, that fneuma is ever used in any other than 
the neuter gender, should not only blush, but be heartily 
ashamed. For if he does not know enough about Greek, to 
know that this word has no other form or sign but neuter, 
he should be ashamed to stand up before an intelligent 
assembly, and claim a knowledge of that language. And 
to prove to us, that a long series of assumptions of 
scholarship has not entirely hardened him to shame, he 
tells us, he does not profess to be very erudite. His efforts 
on this subject would have fully demonstrated that fact 
without the confession. But if he is not ignorant himself, 
but supposes tha.t the majority of those present, and of 
those, who will afterwards read the debate, are not Greek 
scholars, and will not therefore be able to see the 
absurdity and stupidity of such a position ; for the greater 
reason he should be ashamed. First for his want of 
respect to his own scholarship. But second, and particu- 
larly, for his effort at duplicity. Let either of these, or 
both, be his condition, I repeat that he should be ashamed. 
But that charity which covers a multitude of sins would 
lean to the hope, that the former reason is the true one, 



202 DEBATE ON THE 

especially, as he quotes the phrase from John iv, 
"Pneuma ho T/ieos," without perceiving that the article 
ho belongs to Theos, and not to Pncu??ia, which is in its 
regular neuter form. But he says the dispute here is 
about human spirits, and not about the gender of God and 
angels, &c. Let us see. He affirms that human spirits 
are not conscious or intelligent, because the word pncuma, 
by which they are designated, is in the neuter gender. 
I met this by showing, that the same word in the same 
gender is applied to God, angels, and the Holy Spirit, 
and consequently, if the fact that pncu?na is neuter gender 
proves that human spirits are not conscious or intelligent, 
the same fact should prove, that those beings are neither 
conscious or intelligent. For / affirm, once for all, that 
an example in the whole Greek language cannot be found 
where pneuma has either the sign or form of either 
masculine or feminine gender, Dr. Field to the contrary 
notwithstanding. [ Time out.] 



DR. FIELD'S TWELFTH REPLY. 

Brethern and Friends : 

When I agreed to engage in this discussion, I 
resolved to use soft words and hard arguments. And 
under no circumstances to indulge in unkind or un- 
courteous expressions, so common in the excitement of 
controversy. I submit to you, whether the temper and 
language of the closing part of the speech you have just 
heard, savors of Christian courtesy, and the dignity of 
theological debate. But I do not complain, as it is 
almost impossible for a debater, under a consciousness of 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 203 

defeat, to maintain his equanimity of temper. My friend, 
Mr. Connelly, is fresh from College — a graduated Bachelor 
of Arts — and now a teacher of the dead languages, and 
having come here under an impression, that he would be 
at liberty to play the critic with impunity, and finding 
himself disappointed, he becomes impatient and irritable. 
He is manifestly in a bad humor, and expects to relieve 
his perplexity by fretting and fault-finding. 

The truth is, my friends, he has made nothing by the 
Greek, to which he appealed with so much confidence of 
success. Like all other tyros and smatterers in thai 
language, when hard pressed with the English, they 
take refuge in the Greek, on which they ring as many 
changes as the multifarious creeds of their respective 
sects and parties. Every one has a translation to favor 
his peculiar views on some subject, and if full faith and 
credit were given to the criticisms of these sapient sopho- 
mores, the mass of people would never know what to 
believe. 

I have made no pretensions to a critical acquaintance 
with the Greek language ; and it was not at my instance, 
that the debate has taken a direction not suited to a 
popular assembly. But with all his learning, he has not 
been able, either in English or Greek, to prove his propo- 
sition. And, although not fresh from my Alma Mater, 
and rusty in much that I once studied, I venture to say, 
I can confute him in Greek, Latin, German, or English. 

Now, what does all his tirade about the gender of spirit 
amount to ? Have I denied that spirit is in the neuter 
gender ? Have I not shown that it is, and by so doing, 
preyed one of the fallacies of his system ? He was 
careful to conceal that fact from the audience, and he had 
no idea that it would be discovered. He felt secure while 



204 DEBATE ON THE 

ensconced in the Greek, and now, that I have made it 
known, contrary to his expectation, and deduced a fair 
conclusion from it, he pretends that it is a matter of no 
importance ! But he knows better. As a literary fact 
it has an important bearing on the question in debate, 
and it is useless to deny it. 

I see plainly, that we do not understand each other. 
The point is this : He contends that spirit is always in 
the neuter gender, and as God and angels are sometimes 
called spirits, therefore, God and angels are also in the 
neuter gender, and hence, not rational intelligences 
according to my reasoning. I admit, that the word 
spirit is always in the neuter gender ; which is prima 
facie evidence that, abstractly considered, spirit is no 
living or rational intelligence. The fact that God and 
angels are sometimes called spirits, no more proves that 
they are in the neuter gender, than does the fact that a 
living man in the world is called a spirit, prove him to be 
in that gender. Here, then, is his sophism exposed in a 
few words. The quotation from John iv, was designed to 
prove that God, and not the word spirit, is in the mascu- 
line gender. And I here affirm, that no matter by what 
name God and angels may be called, they are in the 
masculine gender. God, angels, and men may be 
described by various words and names expressive of some 
attribute or property of their nature, and these descriptive 
terms may, by grammatical rules, be placed in the neuter 
gender ; and this is all that he can make of the fact, that 
they are sometimes called spirits. He cannot prove the 
consciousness of the human spirit after death, by proving 
that God and angels are spirits. I am contending about 
the gender of tilings, and not about their names. All this 
talk, then, about scholarship, blushing, being ashamed, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 206 

stupidity, &c, is out of place and must recoil on Lis 
own head. 

He says I give the Universalist views of the parable of 
the rich man and Lazarus. Upon his principles, this 
signifies nothing, inasmuch as the greatest errorists and 
visionaries may believe some truth. But no matter whether 
they are Universalist views or not, it is certain that I did 
not give them from Universalist writers, but from distin- 
guished writers on his side of the question. He and they 
for it, then. 

But Theophylact was one of them, and he was a great 
visionary ! So is every man who differs from him. How 
does he prove it ? Simply by saying so. But we are told 
that he belonged to the school of Origen. And so do 
hosts of others, of modern times, and on the subject in 
debate, my friend, Mr. Connelly, is of the same school. 

This celebrated Grecian was born at Constantinople, 
and was a metropolitan bishop. He wrote his commen- 
taries on the four gospels in the eleventh century, in which 
we have his views of this parable. 

But we are told that, by asserting that the rich man 
has some knowledge of salvation, I favor the. views of 
a Mr. Ferguson, of Nashville, who believes that there 
is probation in hades, and that Christ preached the gospel 
to the antediluvians shut up in it at the time of his death. 
Not at all. I did not mean that the rich man had any 
knowledge of salvation for himself, but for his brethren. 
So much for this mistake. 

He thinks that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus 
cannot represent Jews and Gentiles, because its structure 
would require five nations to correspond with the five 
brethren of the rich man. There is no force in this objec- 
tion. It is evident that these five brethren were under 



206 DEBATE 02* THE 

the law of Moses — they were Jews — and may represent 
the five religious sectaries of the Jewish nation, namely, 
— the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, and 
Samaritans. 

The impassable gulf, he supposes, would, if the parable 
has a national signification, symbolize the hopeless condi- 
tion of the Jews. To this I reply — as a nation they are 
cut off. While individuals among them may be converted, 
yet as a nation they will continue in their blindness and 
infidelity to the end of the gospel dispensation. 

He says the belief in spirits is very ancient. So it is, 
but not in disembodied human spirits. From the days of 
Moses, and perhaps before, the Jews believed in the exist- 
ence of a class of beings called devils or demons, who 
may have been the apostate angels. They were regarded 
by the heathen world as an intermediate class of beings 
between their gods and men. There is not a vestige of 
evidence in the Bible, that either the gods or demons of 
Persia, Greece, and Rome, were the spirits of dead men. 

But we are told that Paul indorsed the doctrine of the 
Pharisees concerning the resurrection, when he identified 
himself with them. Very well,' let us see what their doc- 
trine was. It is said in Acts xxiii, 8, " That the Sadducees 
denied the resurrection of both angel and spirit, but the 
Pharisees confess both," that is, they confessed that there 
is a resurrection of both angel and spirit. Here, then, 
according to this text, we see something not very favorable 
to my friend's views. There was no question raised about 
the intermediate state between the Pharisees and Saddu- 
cees, or Paul. It was about the resurrection. Now, the 
question here is this : did Paul sanction the views of the 
Pharisees respecting the spirit after death ? If he did, 
then we have him believing in their Pythagorian notions 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 207 

of a transmigration of souls, and their pre-existence ; for, 
according to Josephus, they held both. Before they 
became corrupted by association with the Roman philoso- 
phers, they held to the resurrection of the body, and just 
so far as this doctrine was concerned, Paul indorsed their 
sentiments. For he distinctly says, "for the hope of the 
resurrection of the dead I am called in question" So far 
he was a Pharisee. 

He says that the idols worshiped by the heathen 
nations were representatives of living beings, who were, 
in fact, the spirits of heroes, deified after death. He 
makes the devils of the Old and New Testament, to whom 
the heathen, and sometimes the Jews, sacrificed their 
children, the spirits of dead men. That this cannot be 
so, I prove by reference to many passages of the Old 
Testament, among which I will here mention the follow- 
ing: Judges vi, 31, Psalms xlvi, 5, Isaiah ii, 8. There 
is also one in the New Testament, that shows that the 
gods of the heathen were nothing more than imaginary 
beings. It is as follows : 1 Cor. viii, 46, "As concern- 
ing those things offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know 
that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none 
other God but one. For though there be that are called 
gods, whether in heaven or in earth ; (as there be gods 
many and lords many ;) but to us there is but one God, 
the Father,' ' &c. Here we see that all those gods wor- 
shiped by the heathen, were really no gods at all. The 
idol was not merely the image, but the god himself, who 
was the object of their idolatrous worship. 

There is another consideration connected with this 
branch of the subject, to which I invite the attention of 
my friend, and that is, if these gods were demons, and 
demons were the disembodied spirits of men, then we 



208 DEBATE ON THE 

have the fact verified, that the spirits of dead men, so far 
from being imprisoned, as he has endeavored to show, 
are at liberty to revisit the earth, enter into the living, 
and influence their conduct. Of this, the demoniacal 
possession, so often mentioned in the New Testament, 
is an illustration. How will he reconcile this idea with 
the fact that the rich man could not get back to warn his 
brethren ? My friend will find, by assuming that the 
demons or devils are the spirits of men, that he refutes 
much that he has said in his former speeches. How can 
it be possible that the spirits of wicked men are tormented, 
in hades, when they are in the living here on earth, tor- 
menting them. We have an example of a legion of them 
being in one man, and when cast out, they entered a herd 
of swine. I would like to have these difficulties removed, 
and hope he will give us light on the subject. 

He says it was contrary to the Saviour's custom to base 
a parable on fiction. But I ask if a parable is not a 
fictitious narration ? " The trees went forth on a time to 
make a king," see Judges vii, 10. Was not this fiction ? 
Buck, in his definition of parable, bears me out in this 
view of it. 

I will now proceed in the presentation of evidence, that 
the dead are unconscious. In the eleventh chapter of 
John, we have an account of the death of Lazarus, and 
his restoration to life. In this instance, our Lord uses 
sleep as a figure of death. He said to his disciples, " our 
friend Lazarus sleepeth, and I go that I may awake him 
out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep 
he shall do well." They knew not, however, that he meant 
he was dead, until plainly informed of it. On approach- 
ing the dwelling of his bereaved sisters, one of them met 
him and said, " Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 209 

had not died." By way of comforting her, our Lord 
replied, " Thy brother shall rise again.'* He did not 
address this disconsolate sister as our modern clergymen 
do the relatives of a deceased person, by telling her that 
her brother was a pious man during his lifetime, and was 
now in heaven or in paradise, according to my friend's 
theology ; that he was happy in the kingdom of glory, in 
the society of angels, and all the saints who had gone 
before him ; that seeing he was so much better off than 
if alive in this world of sorrow, she ought to dry up her 
tears, and be contented. This, as you are aware, is the 
popular mode of ministering comfort to the living at the 
present day. But our Lord adopted a different method, 
and one that comports with the uniform teaching of the 
scriptures. His reply to Martha was, " Thy brother shall 
rise again." This, my friends, is as far as it was neces- 
sary to go then, and it is sufficient now. It is enough to 
be assured that our relatives will arise from the dead, and 
that we shall ao-ain meet them in the bloom and vigor of 
immortality. Martha readily declared her faith in the 
resurrection, as taught by our Lord. Whereupon, with 
a view to still further console her, and inspire stronger 
confidence, he said, "I am the resurrection and the life ; 
he that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall 
he live, and whosoever liveth and believeth shall never 
die.'* Here we have two classes of persons named in 
connexion with the resurrection ; — one class who are now 
dead, but who shall hereafter be restored to life ; and 
another, who will not die. The apostle Paul says we 
shall not all sleep or die, alluding to such Christians as 
shall be living when Christ shall make his second advent. 
According to my friend, those who had died in the faith 
were as much alive at the time our Lord spoke these 
IB 



210 DEBATE ON THE 

words, as they ever had been. But it is evident that they 
were then dead, in the true and natural sense of the word, 
and if not raised at a future time, they had perished. 
This still further illustrates the fact, that Christ is Lord 
both of the dead and living. Notice the fact, my friends, 
that our Lord does not say that those who were dead were 
then alive, but they shall live, — i that is, from and after 
the resurrection. From this passage, it appears, beyond 
all doubt, that even those who have died in Christ are not 
now alive, in any sense of the word. 

Again : 1 Thess. iv, 13. "But I would not have you 
ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, 
that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." 
He did not give them the slightest intimation, that they 
were alive and in paradise, and thereby alleviate their 
sorrow, but assures them, that those sleeping saints shall 
be raised from the dead when Christ returns. As God 
brought again Christ from the dead, so he will bring all 
the saints who sleep in him from the same dark dominion, 
and they with the living saints on the earth at the time 
will ascend to meet him in the air. Let any one read 
this passage of scripture in its connection, and he cannot 
fail to see, that without a resurrection of the dead all is 
lost. That, no matter what may be said about the body 
and the spirit and the whereabouts of either, it is certain 
the saints are asleep, As I have proved they sleep in the 
dust of the earth. Having died in Christ or in covenant 
relation to him, they sleep in the same relation to him, and 
will actually awake to everlasting life at his appearing 
and kingdom. Had Paul entertained the sentiments about 
the dead rife at the present day, he would have comforted 
the living by assuring them, that those who had died 
were then in paradise. 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 211 

There is another fact which I will notice, that proves 
the falsity of the prevailing notions with regard to the 
state of the dead, and that is, that we never get the victory- 
over death until the resurrection. Read carefully the 
conclusion of Paul's argument in the fifteenth chapter of 
first Corinthians, beginning at the fifteenth verse, and you 
will see that death obtains the victory over us until the 
sounding of the last trumpet. Then it is, and not before, 
that we can sing the victor's song. But if my friend's 
doctrine be true, the saint ought not to regard death as 
an enemy, but as a friend ; and if it is true that at death 
he goes to Abraham's bosom or paradise, he has unques- 
tionable got the victory. This doctrine would make the 
apostle's reasoning of none effect, and like all other 
traditions it nullifies the word of God. 

We are told in the same chapter that the first man 
Adam, though a living soul, was of the earth earthy. 
He was destined to return to the earth, and all his 
posterity partake of his nature and share his destiny. 
This is the much talked of penalty of original sin. His 
disobedience entailed on the human race indiscriminately 
natural death by which we return to dust, our earthy 
origin, from which we are brought up to everlasting life 
by the second Adam, who was for this purpose made a 
quickening spirit. Yes, my friends, had it not been for 
the mission of the second Adam or Lord from heaven, 
the whole human family would have, turned to dust and 
perished for ever. This fact gives point and force to the 
declaration, "that God so loved the world that he gave 
his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him 
might not perish but have everlasting life** Upon the 
hypothesis, that man is naturally immortal, and does not 
cease to exist consciously and intelligently at death. 



212 DEBATE ON THE 

whether he be saint or sinner, this declaration is meaning- 
less not to say false. 

Again : Our Lord himself teaches explicitly the 
doctrine that future life depends on the resurrection, and 
not on an immortal or spiritual nature. He says, "And 
this is the Father's will that he hath sent me, that of all 
which he hath given me I shall lose nothing, but should 
raise it uj) again at the last day." John vi, 39. Here it 
is affirmed, beyond all doubt, that his people will be lost 
without a resurrection. There is no evading this con- 
clusion. As I have shown repeatedly this could not be 
the case, if my friend's doctrine were true. The resur- 
rection could be dispensed with, and the righteous could 
still live and enjoy happiness. 

It has been said, that upon my principles the resurrec- 
tion is a new creation — that in death our identity is lost. 
I do not hold myself bound to remove the philosophical 
difficulties in the way of those who maintain contrary 
views. The restoration of man to life after having 
returned to dust is a sublime mystery, so declared by 
inspiration itself. It is one of the truths of revelation 
that can be believed but not explained. God, who made 
the universe, with its innumerable multitudes of living 
beings, is able to reorganize the material body from the 
dust, and make it produce the same intellectual and 
moral phenomena with which it was endowed before 
death. No man who believes the Bible, can doubt this. 
To cavil about it, is to deny the power of God. Suppose, 
for example, I take this watch [takes it out and holds it 
up before the audience] and reduce it to powder, and 
"scatter the particles, and there could be found a silver- 
smith who could collect them together and re-adjust them 
exactly as they were and set the watch to running, and 



-» STATE OF THE DEAD. 213 

make it keep precisely the same time that it did before I 
pulverized it, you would call this a wonderful achievement 
of wisdom and power. This is the best illustration I can 
give you of what I understand the resurrection to be. 

Mr. Connelly. — Would it be the same watch ? 

Dr. Field. — Unquestionably it would. The reduction 
of man to his atoms, and his reorganization is a work of 
omnipotence, nevertheless God can do it. In the resur- 
rection there is no change in the atoms, or identity of the 
person, but in the physical nature. From a natural it 
becomes a spiritual body. Every chemist knows that 
bodies may be changed without being destroyed. If 
there is an apparent impossibility in the process of the 
resurrection, it can only exist in the mind of a philoso- 
phic speculatist, who distrusts the power and wisdom of 
the Almighty. [Time out.] 



214 DEBATE ON THE 



Fourth Day, ) 

Tuesday morning, 10 o'clock. ) 



MR. CONNELLY'S THIRTEENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

The kind providence of our Father in heaven, has 
once more thrown around us the dark curtain of night, 
while we have slept, and having permitted us to see the 
light of this blessed morning with our faculties refreshed, 
we will proceed in the development of our proposition 
by presenting to your consideration a few more proof 
texts, after which we will examine the doctor's objections 
and texts. 

We will call your attention, then, to 1 Samuel xxviii, 
3-20. Now, Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented 
him, and buried him in Ram ah, even in his own city. And 
Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the 
wizards out of the land. And the Philistines gathered 
themselves together, and came and pitched in Shunem ; 
and Saul gathered all Israel together, and they pitched 
in Gilboa. And when Saul saw the host of the Philis- 
tines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled. And 
when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, 
neither by dreams, nor by urim, nor by prophets. Then 
said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath 
a familiar spirit, that I may go to her and inquire of her. 
And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman 
that hath a familiar spirit, at Endor. And Saul disguised 



STATE OF THJC DBAD. 216 

himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two 
men with him, and they came to the woman by night : 
and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar 
spirit, and bring me up him whom I shall name unto thee. 
And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what 
Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have fami- 
liar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land : wherefore, 
then, layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die. 
And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, as the Lord 
liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this 
thing. Then said the woman, whom shall I bring up unto 
thee. And he said, bring me up Samuel. And when the 
woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice : and the 
woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived 
me, for thou art Saul. And the king said unto her, Be 
not afraid, for what sawest thou ? And the woman said 
unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. And 
he said unto her, What form is he of ? And she said, An 
old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle. 
And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped 
with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. And 
Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to 
bring me up ? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed, 
for the Philistines make war against me, and God is 
departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by 
prophets, nor by dreams ; therefore, I have called thee, 
that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. 
Then said Samuel, Wherefore, then, doth thou ask of me, 
seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine 
enemy ? And the Lord hath done to him as he spake by 
me. For the Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine 
hand, and given it to thy neighbor, even to David. 
Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor 



216 DEBATE ON THE 

executed his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the 
Lord done this thing unto thee, this day. Moreover, the 
Lord will also deliver Israel, with thee, into the hand of the 
Philistines ; and to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be 
with me : the Lord also shall deliver the host of Israel 
into the hand of the Philistines. Then Saul fell straight- 
way all along on the earth, and was sore afraid, because 
of the words of Samuel : and there was no strength in 
him, for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the 
night." 

This is a very important extract from the inspired 
volume ; one that speaks for itself, and, as you must 
perceive, it speaks directly to the point in my proposition. 
Note, then, the following facts : First, this extract is a 
historical narration of facts — a statement of things that 
have occurred — of realities. Second, this being true, it is 
as certain that Saul sought for a woman that had a familiar 
spirit, as that he was the king of Israel. Third, that 
through her instrumentality, Samuel was brought up, not 
his body, surely, for that had evidently crumbled to dust, 
as it was before the formation of man at first, consequently 
it was his spirit. Fourth, the whole narrative shows that 
it was customary, in those days, to find those who had 
familiar spirits, who were consulters of the dead ; and, 
fifth, their consultations, as this case shows, were real, 
and not mere delusions or frauds, as we have been told 
by Dr. Field. These facts illustrate my argument founded 
on the law against necromancy, and place my proposition 
beyond reasonable cavil. The doctor can, no doubt, dis- 
pose of this text as he has all the others I have adduced, 
by telling us that it is inferential or symbolical. 

We will next call your attention to the mount of trans- 
figuration, Mat. xvii : "And after six days, Jesus taketh 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 217 

Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them 
up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before 
them ; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment 
was white as the light. And behold, there appeared unto 
them Moses and Elias, talking with him. Then answered 
Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be 
here ; if thou wilt, let us make three tabernacles, one for 
thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.' ' Here is, my 
friends, another case, which is neither symbolical nor infe- 
rential, but a plain statement of facts, where consciousness 
and intelligence is found between death and the resurrec- 
tion. Moses had ascended to the heights of Pisgah, and 
beheld the beauties of the land of Canaan, Israel's pro- 
mised inheritance, and died. But he is now here with our 
blessed Saviour, conversing concerning the Lord's death. 

To the same effect we will read Eev. xxii, 8, 9 : "And 
I, John, saw those things, and heard them. And when I 
had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet 
of the angel which showed me these things. Then said 
he unto me, See thou do it not : for I am thy fellow ser- 
vant, and of thy brethren, the prophets, and of them 
which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." It 
oannot be denied, that one of the prophets who had gone 
from this world, is here conscious and intelligent. And 
should the doctor assume that this is an exception, or 
special case, will he please give us some proof ? 

It is hardly necessary that I should occupy your atten- 
tion in further noticing his criticism on the twenty-third 
chapter of Luke. I have already shown that his punctua- 
tion of the text would not only violate the rules governing 
in such cases, but make the adverb qualify that which 
was plain, instead of that which was obscure. But he 
says such expressions are common. No good writer, so 
19 



218 DEBATE ON THE 

far as I have observed, uses such language, unless they 
wish to contrast what is said at the present with some- 
thing to be said afterwards. And will he give a single 
expression in all the holy oracles, similar to what he would 
make this to be ? If he cannot, he will surely make a 
large draft on our credulity to require us to believe it to 
be an idiomatic expression. That the word paradise was 
applied to the condition of the righteous in hades, is abun- 
dantly evident from Josephus, whose Greek learning will 
hardly be questioned, and also from the Greek lexicons, 
which so define it. So that the fact that they went to 
paradise, harmonizes with my position precisely. 

My friend is still greatly overcome with sleep, and yet 
he will not affirm that he knows it is a state of uncon- 
sciousness, but answers my question on that subject by 
asking me how I know when I am asleep ? and thinks 
it likely that my answer will be his. Well, we will see. 
To his question there can be but two consistent answers. 
First, that we are conscious of sleep ; or second, that we 
do not know. Will the doctor take the first of these 
answers for his? Then he concedes that sleep is not an 
unconscious state. Or does he take the last ? Then he 
acknowledges what I before stated, that he does not know 
whether it is or not, a state of unconsciousness. That we 
sometimes have thoughts in sleep, we know. But he says 
our sleep is then imperfect. Imperfect sleep ! we have 
none. Now the most any man can reasonably affirm on 
this point is, that he does not remember any thoughts 
that passed his mind during those periods. Will the 
doctor himself affirm more than this ? And are we to 
conclude that we have no thoughts, simply because we do 
not afterwards remember them ? If so, we have passed 
the greater portion. of our lives without thought and with- 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 219 

out consciousness. For I appeal to every gentleman and 
lady in the audience, if you can remember your thoughts 
— the thoughts that have passed through your mind for 
one fourth of your lives ? Nay, I appeal to the doctor 
himself to tell us if he can remember all his thoughts for a 
single day of his existence ? We all know that we have 
been infants, and that we have had thoughts in childhood. 
This we know by observation. But who can remember 
the thoughts of his early childhood. Again, I presume 
all have had thoughts in sleep, that were not remembered 
for days, and even weeks. And may we not very reason- 
ably conclude that we have had thoughts which are never 
remembered at all ? Hence the fact that our thoughts in 
sleep are not remembered, no more proves that we have 
no thoughts, than does the same fact prove that we have 
had none during any other period of life ? 

But an examination of his own proof texts will give 
much light on this point. Take his quotation from the 
twenty-sixth chapter of Isaiah, as an example: "Thy 
dead men shall live, together with thy dead body shall 
they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust : for 
thy dust is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast 
out her dead." 

We will, at present, make no remarks with regard to 
the figurative character of this text, but shall examine it 
as it has been introduced, as though it were literal. We 
have in tins text the term awake, which is used as the 
opposite of sleep. The same is true of quite a number 
of passages which he has introduced as the language of 
David, " then will I be satisfied when I awake in thy 
likeness," which shows that the doctor's first position with 
regard to this term, was correct ; that sleep is applied to 
the dead to indicate a resurrection, with which he would 



220 DEBATE ON THE 

like to connect the idea of unconsciousness. And should 
he succeed in showing that this is true, (which he cannot 
do,) it would avail him nothing; for, according to this 
text, the term sleep is applied to the body. And there is 
no dispute as to the fact that the body dwells in the dust, 
or about the unconsciousness of the body. In my intro- 
ductory speech, I introduced several texts, which show a 
clear distinction between the body and the spirit ; and 
that the body returns to the dust, and the spirit to God 
who gave it. Hence, unless the doctor can prove what 
he has asserted, that man is all body — just wliat you can 
see, dead or alive, nothing more and nothing less ; and that 
the spirit is only an elimination of the body, these texts 
can afford him no aid. 

While these facts are before us, we will notice his quo- 
tation from Rev. xx. "The sea gave up the dead 
which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the 
dead which were in them," &c. Now connect this with 
Isa. xxvi, and it is clear that there are three localities 
for the dead, the sea, the earth, and hades. What of 
the dead, I would ask, are in the earth and sea ? The 
dead bodies only, this my friend will not deny. But 
what of the dead are in hades? Will the doctor affirm 
that dead bodies are here too ? no, my friends. This is 
the invisible, the state of the spirits of men. 

We will next notice Isa. xxxviii. The case of Hezekiah. 
And we need only repeat that there is no dispute as to 
what goes to the grave or pit of corruption. But it is 
about that which goes to God. And is it possible that 
the eliminations of the body go to God at death ? 

But this text very happily illustrates my position as to 
the kind of knowledge the dead do not possess. " The 
grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee : 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 221 

They that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth." 
To the dead the truth of God is not declared. But to the 
living — the living only have the means and knowledge of 
salvation. And this was the reason assigned by Heze- 
kiah for his unwillingness to die, and not as the doctor 
supposes, that he w r ould have no consciousness. 

Our attention is again called to the idolatrous worship 
of the heathen. And that you may not lose the point on 
this subject amidst the multiplicity of words, I w^ill state 
it again. I prove by the fact that God has enacted laws 
against consulting the dead, that he thereby recognizes 
their existence and intelligence after death. To this the 
doctor replies by proving that laws were enacted against 
the worship of idols, and thus concludes that the same 
logic would prove that idols were intelligent too. 

I have shown that this conclusion is not just by the 
fact that the images w r ere only the representatives of 
their gods, which were frequently the spirits of departed 
heroes. To prove that the images were their deities 
without reference to other beings, he has named several 
texts in the Old Testament, but as he has neither read 
them nor given his points in them, we will not at present 
notice them. But he says, 1 Cor. viii, 46, proves that 
the heathen gods were only imaginary beings. Can it 
be possible that Dr. Field believes that their images were 
only imaginary images, it would seem so, for he says, 
the idol was not only the image, but the god himself. 
Had he not better concede my position that they only 
represent their deities to the senses ! But that they are 
only imaginary, remains for him to prove. For there is 
certainly no evidence of this in the text in 1 Cor. For 
when the apostle says the idol is nothing we cannot 
understand him to mean that it is a nonentity, but that 



222 DEBATE OS THE 

it is no god, as the context shows ; this all Christians 
concede ; but the fact that it is not a god, surely does not 
prove that it does not exist. 

We will notice his difficulties on demons in its proper 
place. 

My friend says that he does not affirm that the spirit of 
God is in the masculine gender. Did it not look a good 
deal like it, my friends, when he called on me with such 
emphasis, and seeming triumph, to say that either God or 
spirit in the fourth chapter of John is neuter gender. 
But as he has conceded all I contend for on this point, I 
need not notice it further, except to note his most singular 
remark, that while the Spirit's being in the neuter gender 
does not prove that it is not a living intelligence, the fact 
that it is never in the masculine, is prima facia evidence 
that it is not the man proper ! ! And I would ask, is the 
Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit ever in the masculine ? 
Then it must be prima facia evidence that it is not 
intelligent. So you perceive, my friends that the meshes 
of that Greek net, have rather entangled the doctor, and 
although he has flounced at random very considerably he 
is about to yield. 

He admits, that according to his interpretation of the 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus, it represents 
the Jews and the Gentiles, the structure of the parable 
requires five nations to correspond to the five brethren. 
But he thinks these may be found in the five sects of 
Jews. Could anything be more absurd? for that would 
only make the rich man's five brethren represent the 
different parts of himself! a singular brotherhood truly. 

To prove that parables are founded on fiction, he cites 
the parable of the trees going forth to make a king. 
Would the doctor make us believe that the existence of 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 223 

trees, kings, subjects, <fcc, is all fiction ? so it seems. 
We repeat that parables are founded on realities. 

[ Time out.] 



DR. FIELD'S THIRTEENTH REPLY. 

Brethern and Friends : 

From the case of Saul, Samuel, and the witch of 
Endor, my friend, Mr. Connelly, has come to several 
grave conclusions — among the rest, that it proves his 
proposition ! Well, let us see how it does it. In the first 
place I wish to remind you of the fact that, from the 
commencement of this discussion up to the present time, 
he has located the spirits of all the dead in a place called 
hades — in which he says some are happy, others miser- 
able. From his interpretation of the parable of the rich 
man and Lazurus, it would seem, that the former could 
not return to this world, although he, doubtless, desired 
to do it, and the latter, being happy in paradise, had 
no wish to return ; and, as it seems from the narrative, 
could not have done so without a resurrection from 
the dead. Now, he says that it was not Samuel's body 
that was raised, but his spirit. From whence, then, did 
it come ? Let the narrative answer — from the earth. 
The witch said she saw gods ascending out of the earth ; 
and when asked by Saul what form he was of, she answered 
that she saw an old man come up, covered with a mantle. 
What ! a spirit come out of the ground covered with a 
mantle ! Will he admit this ? Besides, we know that 
spirits are invisible to natural eyes ; how is this to be 
reconciled with his supposition that it was Samuel's spirit 



224 DEUATE ON THE 

that tlie witch saw ? But notice, my friends, that neither 
Saul nor the witch expected Samuel to come down, but 
up. Up from whence, I ask ? I wish him to answer 
this question plainly. If he cannot prove that paradise 
is down in the earth, he is bound to admit a resurrection 
of the spirit of Samuel, which will be fatal to his cause. 
Mark it, my friends, Samuel says himself that he was 
disquieted and brought up, and the witcli says it was from 
the earth. My friend, Mr. C, has also contended that 
the spirits of dead men are in the heavenly regions, but 
here he has found the spirit of this good old prophet in 
the earth, brought up at the bidding of a witch ! After 
making known to Saul the result of the approaching battle 
with the Philistines, Samuel said to him that the next day 
he and his sons would be with him. If Samuel was in 
paradise, of course Saul and his sons went to the same 
place ! Here is another difficulty in the way of his inter- 
pretation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, 
who, it seems, were neither in the same place or state. 

It is manifestly impossible that his inferences from this 
case can be correct. There is not an example on record, 
nor any reliable evidence under the heavens, that the 
spirit of a dead man ever- returned without the body, 
and conversed with the living. And this case of Samuel, 
allowing it to be a narration of real occurrences, proves 
nothing favorable to his proposition. If Samuel was 
brought up at all, it was bodily, without which he could 
not have been seen and conversed with by the king of 
Israel. The most ultra Swedenborgian does not believe 
that spirits can be seen with the natural eyes. 

Our attention is next called to the mount of transfigu- 
ration, where Moses and Elias appeared, and conversed 
with our Lord. Luke tells us that two men appeared and 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 225 

talked with him, who were Moses and Elias. You per- 
ceive, then, my friends, that it is all assumption to say- 
that it was the spirits of two men who appeared on this 
occasion. The narration allows of no such a conclusion. 
I know it will be alleged that Moses was dead at the 
time ; aye, but does not my friend teach that Samuel was 
raised for a less important purpose ? If there is nothing- 
absurd in the idea, that a witch could bring up from the 
dead the prophet of Israel, to make a communication to a 
wicked and abandoned king, how can it be considered 
unreasonable or improbable that the great law-giver of 
the Jewish nation should be raised up for the time being, 
at least, to appear on the mount, and there attest the 
superior claims of Jesus Christ, and lay down his authority 
at his feet ? With regard to Elias or Elijah, there is no 
difficulty. He was the great prophet of Israel, who, as a 
reward for his constancy and courage was translated, and 
did not see death. I care not whether he denies that 
Samuel's body was raised or not ; he teaches that his 
spirit was, and that too from the earth. It is said of 
Moses, that when he died God buried him, and his sepul- 
chre was never known to any one. Jude speaks of a 
contest between Michael and the Devil about the body of 
Moses. This means something, and I can conceive of 
nothing else than that the body of Moses was needed for 
some special purpose, and Satan disputed the ability of 
God to restore it to life. At all events, I hold him to a 
strict construction of his proof text. It says, or at least 
Luke says, that two men appeared and talked with the 
Lord. They must have been there bodily, otherwise they 
could not have been seen and heard by Peter and his 
companions. 

His argument from Revelation xxii, 8, 9, weighs nothing 



226 DEBATE ON THE 

when we consider the fact, that two of the most important 
prophets the world ever produced were translated, viz., 
Enoch and Elijah. Either of these men might have been 
chosen to communicate with John on the isle of Patmos, 
and thus all the difficulties in that case can be easily 
explained. For the person whom John was about to 
worship, stated that he was one of his brethren, the pro- 
phets. He appeared to John bodily, for he saw him with 
his natural eyes, and fell down at his feet, to do him 
homage. 

My friend, Mr. Connelly, has great confidence in the 
Greek learning of Josephus, and says he and the Greek 
lexicons define paradise to be a place of happiness in 
hades. Well, we will see how they define it. Greenfield, 
the Greek lexicographer, whose work he has before him, 
says that " paradeisos is a word of Persian origin, and 
means a park, a forest, where wild beasts were kept for 
hunting ; a pleasure park, a garden of trees, of various 
kinds ; a delightful grove ; used by the LXX for the gar- 
den of Eden, or of delight ; in the New Testament, the 
celestial paradise is that part of hades in which the souls 
of believers enjoy happiness, and ivhcre God dwells." 
After very correctly defining the term, he gives you his 
opinion about its locality, as mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment, which, you discover, is above us, in the third heaven, 
for he refers to 2 Cor. xii, 4, as proof of it. According 
to this definition, then, he is compelled to admit that 
the thief went to the third heaven, the very thing that he 
hitherto denied ! He would not even claim that Paul went 
there at death. Again — How will he reconcile this defi- 
nition with the case of Samuel, whose spirit was in 
paradise, according to Greenfield, and my friend, Mr. 
Connelly ? Instead of his spirit coming down from the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 227 

the celestial paradise of these Greek critics and lexicog- 
raphers, it came up from the earth ! If he pins his faith 
to the sleeve of Josephus and Greenfield, he will be 
involved in interminable difficulty. But he says their 
definitions harmonize with his position precisely. So be it. 
While on this subject, I will treat you to some of Mr. 
Campbell's views of hades, paradise, and the separate state 
of human spirits. In his appendix to his new translation 
he says, " Hades is very improperly translated hell in the 
common version. He says it literally means hidden, invis- 
ible or obscure, and that there is no word in our language 
that corresponds with it." This is doubtful, to say the 
least of it. The word grave corresponds with the term 
sheol in Hebrew, and hades in Greek. When the dead 
were deposited in the grave, they were said to be in hades, 
because hidden, invisible, or obscured from the sight of 
the living. If Mr. Campbell had not been biased by 
Platonism and Grecian mythology, he would have found 
a word in the English language by which to translate it. 
I will unhesitatingly affirm here, that the Jews never 
had any other ideas about this word, so far as the dead 
were concerned, than the grave, until they mingled with 
the Greeks and Romans, and imbibed their mythological 
views about an Elysium and a Tartarus. This Mr. Camp- 
bell himself virtually admits — see appendix to new trans- 
lation, page fifty-five. He says, moreover, " that before 
the captivity, the Jews observed the most profound silence 
upon the state of the deceased, as to their happiness or 
misery. They spoke of it simply as a state of darkness, 
silence, and inactivity ." And well they might, when 
neither patriarch nor prophet ever taught the heathen 
doctrine of immortal-soulism and conscious existence after 
death. But we will hear Mr. Campbell again. He says 



228 DEBATE ON THE 

"it destroys the sense of many passages to render the 
word hades by the term grave," and assigns the following 
reasons for this opinion, which will plainly show that his 
doctrinal views were more in danger of being destroyed 
by such a rendering of the word, than the sense of any 
passage of scripture. He says : " The term grave with 
us denotes the mere receptacle of the body ; whereas the 
mansion of spirits separated from the body, is by us sup- 
posed to he quite different from the grave. According to 
our views, we should call the receptacle of the body the 
grave, and the 'place of departed spirits, hades." Here 
you see the secret of Mr. Campbell's difficulties about this 
word fully disclosed. He has suppositions, views, and 
notions opposed to the rendering in question. He must 
have a receptacle for the body and one for the soul, and, 
therefore, he must have three states of human spirits. 
" The first in union with our animal body." This state, 
he says, terminates at death. The second is that state in 
which human sprits are separated from their animal bodies. 
This commences at death, and terminates with the resur- 
rection. This, he says, "is precisely what is called hades" 
By whom, pray ? But he goes on to say, that the third 
state commences after the re-union of the body and spirit, 
and continues for ever. Hades is said to be destroyed 
when the third state commences. Therefore, Mr. Camp- 
bell understands John to mean, that the intermediate state, 
or the receptacle or mansion of spirits, will be burnt up ! 
And he has all the saints singing victory over hades, or 
the place where he locates Abraham's bosom, or paradise, 
and where, according to his own showing, they have 
enjoyed great blessedness ! What a victory ! To triumph 
over a place of happiness ! Lest it should be supposed 
that I misrepresent Mr. Campbell, I will read what 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 229 

he says on this subject. He says, " In hades, then, the 
receptacle of all the dead, there are rewards and punish- 
ments. There is a paradise, or Abraham* s bosom, and 
there is a tartarus, in which the evil angels are chained, 
and the spirits of wicked men engulfed. Hence, Dives 
in tartarus, and Lazarus in Abraham* s bosom, were both in 
hades. Jesus and the converted thief were together in 
hades, while they were together in paradise. But Jesus 
continued in hades but three days and nights. But when 
he leaves hades and the earth, he is said to be taken up 
into heaven.** 

So far as it regards the locality of hades, any one who 
will read Mr. Campbell's views on the subject, must see 
that he holds that it is down in the earth. He comments 
on the words in construction with it, and also paradise, 
the drift of which is, to show that they are somewhere 
below the surface of the earth. These terms and ideas, 
he says, were borrowed by the Jews from the Greeks and 
Romans, to whose views on these subjects they gradually 
assimilated. Notwithstanding all this, without any author- 
ity under heaven, he believes that paradise is doion in the 
earth! I repeat, that there is no authority whatever for 
locating the paradise of the New Testament any where 
else but in the third heaven, or on the new earth. The 
idea that Abraham, Lazarus, Paul, Peter, and all the 
saints, are alive and down in a subterranean cavern, or a 
sort of Sy mines' hole, is perfectly ridiculous. It is just 
such an idea as we might expect to be concocted in the 
brain of a Grecian mythologist. 

The truth is, my friends, hades means the grave. Like 
all other words, it may be used in a figurative sense, to 
indicate a state of great depression, &c. But when used 
in connection with the dead, it means the grave. Our 



230 DEBATE ON THE 

Lord, for purposes of illustration, may have recognized 
the then existing ideas about it, as in the case of the par- 
able of the rich man and Lazarus, but it is certain that 
he never taught them to be true. Here I -will take occa- 
sion to remark, that in Revelation xx, 13, the word hades 
means the grave, and is as much the place of dead bodies 
as the sea. But it will be asked, perhaps, why use the 
term death in this verse as a different place or state from 
the sea and the grave, and as also giving up the dead ? 
The reason, I suppose, is that multitudes of the human 
family have died, and have returned to dust, without the 
rights of sepulture. Many, especially the martyrs, have 
perished at the stake, — have been devoured by wild 
beasts, and otherwise destroyed from the earth. These 
are said to be in death. Hence there is a propriety in 
using the term as descriptive of the condition of a certain 
class who shall appear at the judgment. 

I need say but little more in answer to what my friend, 
Mr. Connelly, says, in defence of the assumption, that 
there is consciousness in sleep. He insists on it that we 
have thoughts in sleep, but do not often remember them. 
I presume he means that we sometimes dream. This I 
grant ; but, as already stated, in perfect sleep we do not 
dream. The mind is as much at rest as the body ; and 
hence, there are no thoughts to remember. Now, to sum 
this matter up, himself being judge, it amounts to about 
this: — that in death a man has no more thoughts or 
consciousness than he has in his lifetime when sound 
asleep. If, then, this is the best he can do for the dead, 
I think it will be admitted, on all hands, that he has not 
done much in proving his proposition. 

He misapprehends me on one point, which I will simply 
correct. I did not say that spirit is an elimination of the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 231 

brain, but the mind or intellect. I have said it, and here 
repeat it, that thinking is a function of the brain, and 
without a brain there can be no mind or intelligence. 

In his notice of the case of Hezekiah, he says there is 
no dispute about what goes to the grave. Well, what 
does Hezekiah say would have gone to the grave or pit 
of corruption, had not God respited him ? He says, " But 
thou hast, in love to my soul, delivered it from the pit 
of corruption" My friend has told you that, in some 
instances, the soul and spirit are synonymous. Here, I 
I suppose, is one of the instances. But Hezekiah says 
of himself that he would go to the gates of the grave. 
" That they (the persons) that go down to the pit cannot 
hope for God's truth." He certainly does not mean the 
body only. If he does, then the body with him was every 
thing, for the man proper, according to Hezekiah, goes 
to the grave. 

I will here correct another misapprehension. I did not 
say that the images of heathen worship were imaginary 
beings, but the gods or beings they were supposed to 
represent. In the forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah, it is three 
times declared that there is no other God beside the great 
Jehovah, the God of Israel. In contrast with the gods 
worshiped by the heathen, he is called the living and 
true God. Baal, Moloch, Ashtoreth, and others, were dead 
gods, merely imaginary beings. Whether the images of 
the heathen represented their deceased heroes or not, it is 
no evidence that they were alive. 

He is still trying to get out of the difficulties info which 
he is involved by the fact that the spirit of man is in the 
neuter gender, and never in the masculine. Now, I admit 
that this, of itself, would not be conclusive evidence that 
the human spirit is not a rational, intelligent entity, but 



232 DEBATE ON THE 

in connection with other evidence, strong as holy writ 
itself, it is conclusive. The arrangement of nouns in the 
Greek language is an arbitrary affair. The usage of classic 
writers and the rules of the language in this respect, are 
matters of taste rather than necessity. In many instances, 
however, it is presumable that there are good reasons why 
a noun should uniformly be used in the same gender. 
Hence, I infer that the spirit of man is not man himself. 
If it were, it would sometimes, at least, be in the same 
gender with man. But he thinks I have entangled myself 
here, and am compelled, for the same reason, to admit 
that the Holy Spirit is not a rational intelligence, and 
exultingly asks me to prove that it is ever put in the 
masculine gender. Well, let us see whether it is or not. 
John xiv, 26, "Ho dc Paraklctos " — But the Comforter. 
Again, xv, 26, "But when the Comforter is come" — 
Hoton ale elthc 7io Parakletos. Again, xvi, 7, '■ For if I 
go not away the Comforter (ho Parakletos) will not come 
unto you." Here, then, I have produced three examples 
of the Holy Spirit being used in the masculine gender — 
which proves my position, that rational intelligences pro- 
perly belong to either the masculine or feminine gender, 
whether grammarians will have it so or not. Now, when 
it is said that God is a spirit, it is absurd to put God in 
one gender and spirit in another. If I say man is a spirit, 
most assuredly man and spirit are really in the same 
gender. But if I say man has a spirit, I affirm quite a 
different thing. Man and his spirit may, therefore, be in 
different genders. If I say Thomas P. Connelly is a 
scholar, according to the rules of the English language, 
Thomas P. Connelly and scholar belong to the same gen- 
der. It ought to be so in all languages, living or dead. 
When, therefore, it is said God is a spirit, God and spirit 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 233 

are dc facto in the same gender. And I have now proved 
that they are both in the masculine — one always and the 
other occasionally. 

He thinks it impossible that the five brethren mentioned 
by Dives could represent five sects of Jews, because, as 
he says, it would make him represent five parts of himself. 
I must confess that I cannot comprehend this logic. Why 
it should be an absurdity, in a parabolic illustration, to 
make one man represent a nation, and five others divisions 
of that nation, I cannot understand. 

If he understood me to say that parables are founded 
on fiction, he is mistaken. I stated that they themselves are 
fictitious narrations. So say the theological dictionaries, 
(see Buck on the word parable.) They may be based on 
what does now, or has existed. Trees, kings, and sub- 
jects exist, and may be used in a parable. History also 
exists, and whether true or false, may be used for illus- 
tration. The same may be said of an existing popular 
sentiment. It may be made the material of a parable. 

\Time out.~\ 



MR. CONNELLY'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

There are a few items in the doctor's last speech, 
on yesterday morning, which we must notice before we 
proceed. 

To prove that the dead are unconscious, the conversa- 
tion of the Saviour with Martha, John xi, has been cited. 
But if you have been able to perceive any evidence of his 
proposition, either in the text, or my friend's remarks 



234 DEBATE ON THE 

upon it, your powers of perception are much better than 
mine. So far from its proving the dead to be unconscious, 
from his own showing it proves the very reverse. And I 
will, therefore, adopt it as a proof-text of my proposition. 

He says there are two classes presented in this text, viz., 
those who are now dead, and those who will be alive at 
the second advent of the Lord Jesus. That the phrase, 
" He that believe th in me, though he were dead, yet shall 
he live," represents those that are now dead. Now, if 
this is true, the text refutes the doctor's position most 
completely, unless he can show that they who have no 
thoughts, no knowledge, and no consciousness, as he says 
is the case with the dead, can believe. For the text repre- 
sents this class as believing. He that believeth in me, 
though he were dead, yet shall he live." We hope the 
doctor will try himself on this passage, and show us the 
the evidence that the dead are unconscious, and how the 
unconscious can believe. 

We would suggest, my friends, that there is no dispute 
either as to the fact that there will be a resurrection, or 
that the victory over death will not be gained until the 
dead are raised, as his remarks on Thessalonians and 
Corinthians would seem to indicate. Will the doctor show 
us how the fact that the dead will be raised, proves that 
there is no consciousness after death ? 

But the thought that his position denies a resurrection, 
still greatly troubles my friend. And he makes quite an 
effort to relieve it from such an imputation. But he 
confesses that this cannot be done on philosophical prin- 
ciples, and hence resolves it all into a sublime mystery. 
A very convenient way of disposing of difficulties. But 
he says it is declared to be so in the holy scriptures. 
Where, I would ask ? It is true the apostle says, " behold, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 235 

I show you a mystery," but what is the mystery of which 
he speaks ? The resurrection ? No. But that some will 
be changed without dying. 

I would be glad if he would take such a position as 
would harmonize with this blessed hope — the hope of a 
resurrection. But he will never be able to extricate his 
present position from such consequences as I have shown. 
For if he is right, man has no identity after death ; but 
is as the dust before man was at all. It must, then, take 
a re-creation to make man again from the dust, as it took 
a creation to make him from the dust at first. Hence he 
must, of necessity, be a new being ; hence there cannot 
be either rewards or punishments to the present order of 
beings. For they will have ceased to be, and new crea- 
tures made of the elements of the present order of beings. 
And, therefore, if blessings be granted in future, it must 
be to new creatures, and that, too, for the actions of 
others ! But the doctor thinks that if it is the same 
material, it must be the same being ; but according to this 
logic, my friends, the bed of coals on your hearth is a bed 
of the richest diamonds ; for the material is the same. 
But let us try his position with some other facts. It is 
well understood that particles of the human body are 
constantly changing. Hence the same particles of matter 
have evidently composed, in part or in whole, the bodies 
of different persons since the creation. 

I would like for the doctor to try his watch illustration, 
in view of these facts. Suppose his watch be reduced to 
its elements, and those particles enter into the composition 
of other watches, and after all have been dissolved to its 
elements, a watch made of the material, will he tell us 
which of the watches into whose composition its particles 
have been, this new one is? But he is not bound to 



236 DEBATE ON THE 

answer philosophical difficulties. He made quite an elo- 
quent speech, the other day, with regard to the harmony 
of truth, and does he now recede from those just remarks 
on that subject, and tell us that philosophical truth will 
not harmonize with revealed truth ? 

But, he says, to question the resurrection on his princi- 
ples, is to question the power of God. But let us see if 
his philosophy does not do even more than this. He told 
us, I believe, in his first speech, when objecting to my 
definition of spirit, that immateriality is nothing. I have 
asked him if God is material. But he will not answer, 
only that it is immaterial with him, whether he is or not. 
Well, let us see the result of his philosophy on the sub- 
ject. God is either material or immaterial. If material, 
then ubiquity is not an attribute of the Deity, for no two 
particles of matter can occupy the same space at once. 
Consequently, when the scriptures assure us that God is 
every where, it is all a mistake. But if he is immaterial t 
then, according to Dr. Field, he is nothing. Hence his 
position not only denies the power of God, but the exist- 
ence of God himself. 

The case of Saul and Samuel gives my friend great 
perplexity. He is up and down, now in hades, then in 
the heart of the earth, and again in the heavenly regions. 
Now, what does all this blustering mean, but to obscure 
the point, or call off your minds, that you may lose sight 
of the force of this text. I wish you to note, my friends, 
that he admits that it is a historical account of facts. It 
is a fact, then, that this witch brought Samuel to converse 
with Saul. But this, he thinks, was the body of Samuel, 
for nothing else, he said, could be seen. He teaches, 
then, that witches had the power to reorganize the bodies 
of the dead, and set them in active operation, to eliminate 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 237 

thought, and thus communicate to the living their fates 
and destinies ! This is clearly in advance of the spirit 
manifestations of modern times. It cannot be true, then, 
that Christ alone has power to raise the dead. But how 
does this comport with what he has told us before. In 
reply to my argument from the laws against necromancy, 
he affirmed, and would have made us believe, that it was 
all delusion and fraud, and that God only enacted laws 
against the fraud. But, since I have given facts showing 
that the dead were consulted, he admits it. But, if possible 
to keep it from bearing on my proposition, he tries to 
make us believe that those witches and consulters of 
familiar spirits, had power to re-organize the bodies of men, 
and hence, according to his position, they had power to 
create man from dust, and endow him with all the faculties 
possessed by those that God had created. For, if man is 
all body, as the doctor teaches, and as this goes to its 
elements — to dust, at death — then Samuel had no identity, 
being dead, as he was before the creation, his being and 
intellection must have been given him by the witch ! ! ! 
For it is evident that God had nothing to do with his 
appearance to Saul, for he had refused to make any com- 
munication to him. And that this is not an isolated case 
— that they were numerous — I think no one, who will 
carefully read this narrative, can doubt. And I doubt 
not that the doctor will find that this case proves altogether 
too much for his philosophy, notwithstanding his declara- 
tion that it proves nothing. 

The doctor assumes that Moses was raised from the 
dead for the special occasion of the tranfiguration. But 
does he give any proof that such is the case? None, 
whatever. Only that his case demanded — very urgently 
demanded — this assumption ; demonstrable evidence, 



238 DEBATE ON THE 

however, with the doctor. And for the same reason — 
that is, his cause demands it — he assumes that the prophet 
who appeared to John in Patmos, was either Enoch or 
Elijah. But I am greatly mistaken in the character of 
this people, if you would not like to have some better 
evidence than this, however satisfactory it may be to the 
doctor. 

The fact that Samuel, Moses, and Elias were seen, does 
not at all militate against my position, for it is evident that 
spirits frequently manifested themselves to the living ; at 
least it was so believed by the disciples, as is clearly to be 
seen from their frequent reference to the fact. 

My friend seems to be greatly excited about hades. I 
have proved to him that in hades there are conscious 
intelligences found, and it has so excited him, that his 
imagination has ransacked the universe for its locality. 
He sometimes imagines that I understand it to be in the 
heart of the earth, and that it is in the heavenly regions. 
And, unable to be kept in suspense any longer on this 
subject, he has spent a considerable portion of his last 
speech in discussing this question with Alexander Camp- 
bell. Had I known that his curiosity had become so 
ungovernable, I would have given a little more time to 
this term in my former speeches. 

I would simply remark, however, with regard to his 
assault on brother Campbell's views, that A. Campbell 
is fully able to speak for himself. And he is known not 
to be very backward in defending his positions against the 
attacks of any reputable individual, on any suitable occa- 
sion. And if the doctor will attend strictly to all the 
facts and documents we present, we will try to keep him 
busy, without his disturbing those who have not now an 
opportunity to speak for themselves. 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 239 

But what and where is hades ? The etymology of the 
term shows that it originally meant the invisible — the 
unseen state. And the history of its use, as reported by 
the lexicons, shows that this original meaning has not 
been departed from, and is used generally with reference 
to the state of separate spirits. The term seems to be 
used with reference to no particular locality, but to the 
state of the dead. Hence all the doctor's thunder about 
up and down, the heart of the earth, or subterranean 
cavern, Symmes' hole, the air, the heavenly regions, &c, 
is all lost. He says, when used in connection with the 
dead, it means the grave. But by what authority ? Does 
he cite any ? None. But his position demands it. 

He thinks the reason why the term death is used in 
Rev. xx, as distinct from the sea and hades, as giving up 
its dead, is, that multitudes have been sacrificed and died 
without the rite of sepulture ! And does he think that 
their bodies have found no resting place, either in earth 
or sea ? 

But the idea that there is a degree of happiness and 
misery in hades is, with him, entirely inexplicable, unless 
the victory is gained and the judgment passed ! And 
why not for the same reason conclude, as there is a degree 
of happiness and misery here, that the judgment is now 
passed and the victory won. 

The truth upon this subject is this : all the joy and 
consolation of the saints, either here or in hades, are based 
upon the mediation of Christ, and a hope of the resurrec- 
tion, to enjoy — fully enjoy — all the blessings of heaven, 
the crown of victory, and of life and righteousness, and 
the heavenly inheritance ; the society of the Saviour and 
of the angels. This fact will explain why the Saviour, in 
administering consolation to his disciples, directed their 



240 DEBATE ON THE 

attention to the final victory rather than to the interme- 
diate joys. 

Having failed to show that there is no consciousness in 
sleep, and as nearly all his evidence depends upon this 
figure of speech — for the sum of evidence from quite a 
majority of the texts he has quoted, is that the dead 
sleep — he finally concludes that there is no more thought 
after death than in sleep any how ! 

We will, probably, not have occasion to notice this 
subject again, and would repeat, what we have before 
shown, that his own texts show that this trope is used 
with reference to the dead to indicate a resurrection, and 
not the condition of the dead. Hence his evidence depends 
upon a perversion of the texts, where the term sleep is 
found. 

He charges me with misrepresenting him, in saying 
that man's spirit is an elimination of his body. Let us 
see. He told us it was an attribute of man's nature. 
That I might understand him I asked what he meant by 
attribute, and he gave us a number of examples, which, 
he said, were the eliminations of the body. To what 
other conclusion, then, could I come, with respect to his 
view of spirit ? Did you not understand him as I did ? 
I am glad he is disposed to reject that absurd position. 
But will he now tell us distinctly what he understands the 
spirit to be ? [ Time out.] 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 241 



DR. FIELD'S FOURTEENTH REPLY. 

Brethern and Friends : 

Before I notice my friend's last speech, I will 
present some additional facts with regard to the soul, 
subversive of his doctrine. I would again remind you, 
that he has coupled the word soul with his proposition, 
alleging as a reason for it, that the soul and spirit some- 
times mean the same thing. Keeping this before your 
minds, I will now prove that it is mortal — that it has 
died, may die, and will die. I am fully prepared to hear 
in reply to this evidence, that the word soul is used in 
various senses. This is not denied. But it will be for 
him to show that, in the examples which I shall produce, 
that it it not used in every sense. 

Joshua xi, 11, " And they smote all the souls that were 
therein (Hazor) with the edge of the sword, utterly destroy- 
ing them ; there was not left any to breathe ; and they 
burnt Hazor with fire." Here is a strong case, showing 
that souls can be utterly destroyed with the sword. Again 
— Psalms vii, " Lest they tear my soul like a lion rending 
it in pieces, while there is none to deliver." Again — 
lii, 9, " But those that seek my soul to destroy it, shall 
go down into the lower parts of the earth." Again — 
lxxxix, 46, ''What man is he that liveth that shall not see 
death ? Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the 
grave] " 

Again : Ez. xviii, 4. " Behold all souls are mine ; as 

the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; 

the soul that sinneth it shall die." Again : Ps. lvi, 6. 

" They gather themselves together, they hide themselves, 

21 



242 DEBATE ON THE 

they mark my steps when they lie in wait for my 
soul." Again : "My soul is among lions. Deliver me from 
bloody men, for they lie in wait for my soul." Again : 
cvii, 4, 5. " They wandered in the wilderness in a 
solitary way ; they found no city to dwell in. Hungry 
and thirsty their soul fainted in them." Again: Num. 
xi, 6. "But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing 
at all but this manna before our eyes." Again : Rev. 
xvi, 3. !« And the second angel poured out his vial upon 
the sea: and it became as the blood of a dead man; and 
every living soul died in the sea." 

Here we have ample evidence that the soul is mortal — "> 
as much so as the body. It is represented as fainting, 
drying away, being or liable to be, rent in pieces, slain by 
the sword, going down to the grave, dying in the sea, &c. 
In all the places in which it is mentioned in the Bible, an 
immortal or undying nature is never once predicated of it. 
How, then, can any man in view of these facts gravely 
assert that it never dies ? Many of the advocates of the 
immortal soul philosophy are becoming so well convinced 
that it cannot be sustained so far as the soul is concerned, 
that they have, like my friend, Mr. C, shifted the ground 
and contend that the spirit is the immortal part. But as 
you have learned in the course of this discussion, the 
evidence of the one is no better than that of the other. 
Both alike rest on nothing better than the vain philosophy 
of this world. The set and popular phrases of immortal 
soul and never-dying spirit have been so long hackneyed 
that the mass of mankind have taken it for granted that 
they are Bible phrases. That the word of God is replete 
with evidence that the soul is as immortal as God himself. 

The word soul, like that of spirit, has several meanings. 
First. The principle of animal life. Second. The seat of 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 243 

desires and passions. Third. The whole person. Fourth. 
A dead body. Fifth. A figure of personification. Sixth. 
Being or existence. It occurs about one hundred and 
twelve times in the English Bible, and in no instance 
whatever is it said to be immortal. 

My friend, Mr. C, thinks that John xi, refutes me, 
because it says that the dead are now living. If that were 
the case it would have been unnecessary to distinguish 
them from the living when speaking of faith. Our Lord 
would have likely expressed himself thus. He that 
believeth on me never dies. But he speaks of a class who 
were dead and says they shall live — not that they now 
live. They died in the faith and have the promise of a 
resurrection. There is no man on this green earth that 
can give a more consistent and rational exposition of this 
passage than the one I have given. Any other view T of it 
is attended with insuperable difficulties. 

The passage in Ecc. xii, has often been pressed into 
my friend's service during this debate as proof of the 
consciousness of the spirit after death. " Then shall the 
dust return to the earth as it was ; and the spirit shall 
return unto God who gave it." Now, I want him, when 
he rises again, to tell us what the spirit knew before it 
came from God ? I hope he will not forget this ; and 
when he gives us the desired information, perhaps it will 
throw some light on the question in debate. If he is right 
ingenious, he will in all probability make it appear, that it 
knows quite as much after it returns to God as it did 
before it came from him. 

The doctrine advocated by him is essentially the same 
as that preached in the garden of Eden. " Thou shalt 
not surely die." It was productive of the most disastrous 
consequences then, and ever since it has conflicted with 



244 DEBATE ON THE 

the word of God, and operated injuriously on the best 
interests of mankind. The following are some of its evil 
consequences : — 

1. It involves in mystery and confusion the word of 
God, contradicts the Mosaic account of creation and of 
the fall of man, and necessitates a mode of interpretation, 
which if universally adopted would unsettle every doctrine 
of the Bible. 

2. It makes sceptics and infidels of many intelligent 
men, who are unable to reconcile the laws of nature, 
and the deductions of reason, with what are declared to 
be the doctrines of revelation, and, therefore, reject the 
Bible altogether. 

3. It destroys that fundamental doctrine of the Bible — 
the resurrection of the dead — and substitutes for it, the 
comparatively inglorious doctrine of a re-construction of 
an almost superfluous body, thus depriving the resurrec- 
tion of all its importance and glory. 

4. It causes some to believe that at death, their souls 
or spirits are clothed in a sort of ethereal or spiritual 
body, and thus practically to believe that the resurrection 
is past already. 

5. It gives rise to the conclusion, that if the essential 
and living part of man — the soul never dies — then the 
resurrection of dead men to life is a contradiction. 

6. It is the strong-hold of Restorationism, Universal- 
ism, and Swedenborgism. 

7. It affords the entire support of the invocation of 
saints, purgatory, prayers for the dead, and of many of 
the superstitions of popery. 

8. The popular delusions about apparitions, nursery 
tales about ghosts, and the spirit rapping delusion rest 
on this doctrine. 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 245 

9. It causes the atonement and mission of Christ to be 
misunderstood, undervalues his death, and the penalty 
of sin. 

10. It deprives Christ of the honor of dispensing immor- 
tality in his mediatorial character. 

11. It makes death a saviour and the sole instrumental 
cause of our first personal introduction to God and to 
heaven, thereby depriving our blessed Lord, who is the 
resurrection and the life, of this honor. 

12. It supercedes the necessity for the coming of Christ, 
and a general judgment, and deprives these events of all 
their importance and solemnity. 

13. It is one of the main causes of the inefficiency of 
the gospel. The wicked are taught to believe that they 
are naturally and necessarily immortal ; from which they 
consequently infer that they will somehow or other escape 
the penalty of the divine law, as it is popularly under- 
stood, and live forever in a condition no worse than the 
present. 

I have thus summed up some of the effects of the 
doctrine of the proposition, one of which is fraught with 
more mischief to the world than all other errors of Pro- 
testantism combined. I allude to the doctrine of purgatory, 
invocation of saints, and prayers for the dead, which are 
fruits of the doctrine of immortal-soulism. Think, my 
friends, of the impositions practiced on the ignorant by a 
crafty priesthood through this error. How many millions 
of dollars have been extracted from the credulous, under 
the pretence of praying their friends and relatives out of 
purgatory ? Tetzel had the presumption to say, that 
he had saved more souls out of purgatory by the sale of 
indulgences than Peter saved by his preaching ! ! A 
gentleman in Bardstown, Ky., and a member of the legal 



246 DEBATE ON THE 

profession, told me some years .ago, that there were a 
number of wills on record in that county containing large 
bequests to the priesthood for praying the souls of the 
testators out of purgatory ! ! A few years ago the whole 
Catholic Church in the United States prayed for the repose 
of the soul of Bishop England of South Carolina ! Upon 
the supposition that the souls of the saints are alive, they 
have been invoked as mediators, and the most abominable 
follies and superstitions have been practiced. If the doc- 
trine I teach were universally believed, all this would 
cease, and Popery with all its corruptions and crimes 
would be banished from the earth. 

Now, I defy any man to show that the doctrine I hold 
in reference to the state of the dead, can produce any 
injury whatever to the living. It is liable to no abuses, 
leads to no superstitions or delusions. No harm, what- 
ever, can result to any man from believing that at death 
he ceases to be conscious — falls asleep in Christ, until it 
is his pleasure to restore him to life and incorruptibility. 
What danger is there, my friends, to the church from 
believing, and zealously inculcating the doctrine, that 
future life and happiness are dependent on a good Christian 
character ; that a resurrection from the dead is indis- 
pensable to an introduction to the joys and felicity of 
paradise ? None whatever. The belief is eminently 
calculated to humble the pride of man and make him feel 
his dependence on the grace of God for life and salvation. 
The answer we give to those time-servers, who acknow- 
ledge the doctrine to be true, but ask what good will 
result from teaching it is, that it has a practical influence 
in the formation of Christian character — in making men 
faithful, honest, and circumspect. As all hope of living 
forever depends on conditions, this fact increases the 



6TATK OF THE DEAD. 247 

p >bability of a strict and unwavering compliance. It is 
a powerful stimulus to obedience. 

The sleep of the dead has been denounced by Alexander 
Campbell and his satellites as a blighting* and withering 
doctrine — destitute of comfort — soul chilling in its 
influence, (fee. Hence, they call it the soul-sleeping doc- 
trine — and caricature it with other hard names, somewhat 
like those which the sects used to employ in exhibiting 
the danger and wickedness of some of their reformation 
principles. 

But what is there either dangerous or demoralizing in 
the doctrine ? Let them show that any good man has 
ever been made worse by it. How many thousands are 
there in the churches of the reformation, yea, all churches 
who hold the doctrine advocated by Mr. Campbell and my 
friend, Mr. Connelly, who are a disgrace to the Christian 
name and profession. I am aware that many people 
have an idea that an unconscious sleep is something 
dreadful and uncomfortable. But when it is considered 
that unconsciousness virtually annihilates time, what would 
a sleep of a thousand years be to one who is destined to 
awake from it and live through everlasting ages. Eternal 
life is not shortened by it. In comparison with it, the 
sleep of Adam will be no more than a drop to the ocean. 
And with all its seeming terrors, what is there in it more 
unpleasant than being locked up in the bowels of the 
earth ? — in a great subterranean mansion where there is 
no light, unless Symmes* philosophy be true. 

f Time out.] 



248 DEBATE ON THE 



MR. CONNELLY'S FIFTEENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

We have met again to prosecute, and this evening 
conclude, our investigations. My last speech was devoted 
chiefly to an examination of my friend's difficulties. And 
there are still a few things in his first speech this morning, 
that I will, perhaps, be expected to pay my respects to 
before I proceed. 

He charges me with misrepresenting him, by saying that 
the idols were the gods of the heathen. I am sorry that 
the doctor's memory is so short. As you all know, he 
quoted several texts to prove that the idols were heathen 
gods, and added, that the idols were not the images merely, 
but the gods themselves. Being compelled to abandon this 
position, he now tells us that the beings — the images — 
represented, were only imaginary. He has a right, of 
course, to change any position he has taken. But it would 
at least have been as honorable to have confessed his mis- 
take, as to charge me with misrepresentation. But does 
he give any evidence that his last position is true. For 
his failure in this, perhaps, he should be excused, as he 
evidently has no proof to give. 

The doctor can see no incongruity in making one indi- 
vidual represent a nation, and then represent the different 
parts by other individuals. This may all do well enough ; 
but it is only a flimsy effort to evade the point. He has 
already admitted that the structure of the parable would 
require that the five brethren should represent five nations, 
if the rich man represents the Jewish nation. And in 
immediate connection with this concession, he would so 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 249 

far presume upon our ignorance as to try to make us 
believe that the different sects among the JeAvs would 
answer for nations ! But, in his estimation, there can be 
nothing out of the way in making a mail's members his 
own brethren ! Truly a singular relationship ! 

He has made another effort to prove that pncuma is 
sometimes in the masculine gender, and has thereby fur- 
nished us another fine specimen of his Greek criticism. 
He cites a few texts where the word paraldetos is used as 
indicating the office or work of the Spirit, and concludes 
that jpnuema must sometimes be masculine, because para- 
klctos is ! ! But what is most remarkable is, that all this 
effort is made while the doctor himself admits that it is 
not so. But he thinks that "it should be so cle facto." 
Of course it ivould be so, if he had the privilege to 
re-model and re-arrange the language to suit himself. 
What a pity he had not lived before the apostles, that he 
might have perfected the Greek tongue before the holy 
oracles were committed to it. He further admits, that if 
his criticism was true, it could prove nothing by itself. 
But connected with other things, as strong as holy writ, 
it proves his position most conclusively. Yes, if it had 
those other things it might do. So would the fact that 
Bonaparte died on St. Helena, if it had other facts strong 
as holy writ, do as well. But, doctor, what are those 
other things ! It would be edifying to us all to learn 
them. But let us see. He has presented two classes of 
texts to prove that death is a state of unconsciousness. 
The one, which includes nearly all he has offered, is 
where reference is made to sleep. But how can this prove 
his position ; for he has failed to show that literal sleep 
is a state of unconsciousness, much less the tropical. 
Again, his own proof texts show, as we have seen, not 



250 DEBATE ON THE 

only that sleep is applied to the body, but that it is so 
applied not to indicate a state of unconsciousness, but a 
state from which there is a resurrection. The other class 
includes such texts as declare that the dead know not 
any thing, which, as we have clearly demonstrated, refer 
to a specific kind of knowledge — a knowledge of salvation. 
Hence, to bring his evidence to a conclusion, as the dead 
have no means of salvation, and will be raised from the 
dead, therefore, the dead are not conscious ! 

We are now up to the doctor's last speech, I believe. 
"Why should he pass by my last speech entirely unnoticed, 
and spend his time in irrelevant matters ? Perhaps he 
thinks that he can make better headway in an open field 
than he can in argument relative to the question. A 
large portion of his speech is a " jictitio principii" — a 
begging of the question. For what reason has he given, 
or can he give, that his long catalogue of evils are conse- 
quent upon my proposition, besides his own dictum. Let 
him give reasons, if he has them, that the evils he has 
enumerated are necessary consequences of a belief of my 
proposition. For if they are necessary consequences, 
they must follow with every person who believes it. Will 
the doctor, then, be kind enough to furnish us with his 
method of deducing such evils from the fact that the 
spirits of men are conscious after death. It is quite 
evident, my friends, that the doctor has concluded that it 
is much easier to declaim against my proposition with 
hard epithets, than it is to meet the facts and documents 
which I have produced. He has a right, however, to 
pursue his own course in this matter. 

My friend has favored us with quite a lengthy disquisi- 
tion on the soul, showing that it has died, and that it does 
and may die. Now, this is wholly gratuitous. That the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 25t 

soul dies, has not been disputed. I have even admitted 
that the spirit dies, not that it ceases to be conscious ; but 
dies, departs out of this world, is separated from the body. 
Is it possible that he has nothing else to fill up his time 
with, that he must spend it in descanting on matters about 
which there is no dispute ? Why not show that the fact 
that the soul or spirit dies — or is separated from the 
body — proves that it is not conscious after death. For 
what does it signify if the soul dies, unless it can be shown 
that death is a cessation of conscious being. 

The doctor, and those with him, since their revival of 
this materialism, which is rather of French origin, have 
dwelt upon the words death and die, and emphasized them 
in their speeches and essays, as though they thought the 
words contain, in themselves — in their very structure — 
all the evidence of their assumption ; and as though they 
thought no one could see that the laws and usages of the 
language were not violated by their use of these terms. 
For we repeat again, that there is no authority under the 
broad canopy, human or divine, for the meaning they 
attach to these words. 

The soul, however, does not belong to my proposition. 
It is true, as we have shown, both by the authorities, and 
by a few examples, that it is sometimes used in the sense 
of spirit ; not that it is always so, nor even that it is 
generally so. I would remark, however, that I have 
preferred the term spirit in my proposition, not because 
the word soul could not be successfully defended in the 
sense I have given it in the texts which I have introduced, 
but from a respect to the general use of those words in 
the sacred writings. So that I am under no obligation to 
notice his remarks on the use of the word soul. I must, 
however, give them a brief notice — a literary curiosity. 



252 ' DEBATE ON THE 

He says lie is prepared to hear in reply, that the word 
has different meanings. This he admits ; but calls on me 
to show that it is not used in all its senses in the texts 
which he has introduced ; thus virtually affirming that it 
is ! That one word is used in five or six different senses 
in the same connection or context, is perfectly ridiculous. 
The doctor must have learned this from his Greek author, 
Theophylact, who thinks every word has a mountain of 
meaning. But let us read a few of his texts, with all his 
senses of the word soul substituted, to see how his posi- 
tion will do. A single example will do for an illustration. 
Isaiah xii, 11, "And they smote all the principles of 
animal life. The seats of desires and passions. The 
whole persons. The dead bodies, figures of personifica- 
tion, beings or existences that were therein, with the 
edge of the sword, utterly destroying them." This is, 
surely, ridiculous enough. 

His fourth, fifth, and sixth definitions must have been 
taken from some literary gem, which has never been 
brought to light, and which will, doubtless, immortalize 
its author. As his fifth definition was evidently invented 
to meet his position on Rev. vi, we will substitute it in 
that .text, and see if it will do. "And when he had 
opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the figures 
of personification of them that were slain," &c. This, I 
suppose, suits the doctor's taste very well. 

My friend's effort to save himself from his own proof 
text, John xi, 25, 26, shows that he feels his inabilty to 
save himself from himself, as will be seen by contrasting 
his first position with what he now says. He told us, in 
the first place, that the Saviour spoke of two classes ; 
that by the phrase, " he that believeth, though he were 
dead, yet shall he live," the Saviour meant those that are 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 253 

now dead. The very structure of the phrase snows that 
it means no such thing. But granting it, for the sake of 
the case, I showed that it proved that those who are now 
dead still believe. That such is the fact, on the doctor's 
own interpretation, no one, who will look at the text, can 
fail to see. Hence, by his own showing, his whole scheme 
of philosophy is forever refuted. But now he says, if that 
were the case, it would not have been necessary to distin- 
guish them from the living, when speaking of faith ; but 
that our Lord would likely have said, he that believes on 
me never dies. This is substantially what the Saviour 
does say, as any one may see who will look at his lan- 
guage. But fearful that all would see he had, in his 
remarks, abandoned his position on this text, the doctor 
affirms, with an air of seeming triumpli, that no man on 
the green earth can give a more consistent and rational 
exposition of this passage than the one he has given ! 

We must not disappoint the doctor's hopes by forgetting 
his most profound question. And what would it prove if 
I could give no answer at all ? It has been said that 
fools may ask questions that philosophers cannot answer. 
But without stopping to inquire whether this is one of 
that class or not, I must, for the doctor's sake, look a 
little at its logic. What did the spirit know before it 
came from God ? He thinks, then, that unless I can 
prove that the spirit was conscious and intelligent before 
it was created, that it cannot be so after its creation ! ! 
That would prove that there is no consciousness now ! 

His remark that the doctrine of my proposition is essen- 
tially the same as that preached in the garden of Eden, 
merits no reply, and I will give it none, only to state that 
it is founded, as is his whole philosophy, on the baseless 
assumption that death is a cessation of conscious being. 



254 DEBATE ON THE 

And, as was before shown, he is sustained by no authority, 
human or divine. 

We have been favored, in the concluding part of my 
friend's last speech, with quite a treat of the pathos. The 
doctor seems to think, that if he cannot succeed with 
argument in removing our old superstitions, he can at least 
arouse our sympathies. 

He would make us believe that Alexander Campbell, 
and his satellites, have wonderfully persecuted him. They 
have denounced and characterized his views, till one would 
almost conclude, from his display here, that his very life 
had been in jeopardy. But he defies any one to show 
that his doctrine is productive of any evil whatever. It 
would be too cruel, after all he has suffered, to add aught 
to his difficulties, by recounting the evil tendencies of his 
views. For, if we may rely upon the doctor's remarks, 
we would be forced to conclude that there is no one who 
believes with him, that is not an honor to both church 
and state. I would ask, however, what good can his 
doctrine do, if it were true ? For, he admits that many 
who believe it, can see no good result from its proclama- 
tion. This is, doubtless, just. And what are we to think 
of a doctrine whose good results are matters of doubtful 
disputation, even among its adherents. This is surely no 
part of Christianity, for it was never so regarded. The 
doctor's reply to all such is, that it makes men faithful, 
honest and circumspect ! Surely he does not intend to 
say that he was unfaithful and dishonest before he adopted 
his present views ! If so, we would not, for any thing, 
weaken his confidence in them. For he surely cannot 
suppose that any one could be made to believe that his 
are the only views that teach a conditional salvation. 

He is aware that many look upon an unconscious sleep 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 255 

as something dreadful. And why should they not, with 
such a display made before them as he made yesterday, 
with regard to old Hezekiah. But now he would make 
us believe that his doctrine is as consoling as mine — that 
unconsciousness annihilates time — and, consequently, the 
dead, I suppose, could not tell that they had been uncon- 
scious at all ? For what, then, is he disputing ? 

We will now introduce an argument founded on the 
demonology of the Bible. We have been told repeatedly 
that demons are spirits. To this I agree. I propose now 
to inquire what kind of spirits. We also indorse a state- 
ment that has been made repeatedly — that words are to 
be taken in their plain, common sense meaning, unless 
the context decides differently. Having premised these 
facts, we ask, what was the commonly received meaning 
of this word in the time of the Lord and his apostles ? 
We would ask you to remember our argument on the law 
against necromancy, as giving a clear intimation that they 
were the spirits of men. But let us examine some author- 
ities. And, to save my friend from unnecessary trouble, 
we would state in advance, that we cite the proposed 
authorities simply to show what the word meant in the 
days of the Saviour and his apostles. 

We will call your attention, in the first place, to the 
definition of Dr. Webster : " Demon, a spirit, or imma- 
terial being, holding a middle place between men and the 
celestial deities of the pagan." Again, he says, "It was 
supposed also that human spirits, after their departure 
from the body, became demons.' * But what say the 
ancients themselves ? Hesiod, one of the oldest writers 
known to history, who once wrote a treatise, called the 
genealogy of the gods, says the spirits of mortals became 
demons when separated from the body. [Time out.] 



256 DEBATE ON THE 



DR. FIELD'S FIFTEENTH REPLY. 

Brethern and Friends : 

There is much in my friend, Mr. Connelly's last 
speech, which does not merit an extended notice. The 
most of his points are obscure, and of but little impor- 
tance. The only one very perspicuous, is the fact that he 
is in a bad humor. He needs to be exhorted, in the 
language of scripture, to let patience have her perfect 
work. As the debate will close this evening, I shall study 
brevity in my remaining speeches, condensing as much as 
possible my arguments and replies. 

He complains that I did not fully reply to his last 
speech this morning. True I did not, but intended to do 
it this evening, and will now perform the task. 

He assumes that man cannot return to dust, without 
losing his identity, and necessitating a new creation, in 
order to restore him to life. Yet he will not deny that 
man does return to dust. But calls on me to explain the 
resurrection in harmony with his views, and show how 
it is possible for God to re-organize a man from the dust 
of the earth ! Will he say that God cannot do it ? Sup- 
pose man's identity should be lost, cannot God restore it ? 

The whole of the argument, from the philosophical 
difficulties of the resurrection, is this : He holds that the 
body, from birth to death, passes through many changes 
of waste and reproduction. At death it returns to dust, 
or becomes the nutriment of animal and vegetable life. 
Its particles are thus scattered beyond the possibility of 
recovery. At death, the "spirit, or man proper, goes to 
hades. When, therefore, the resurrection takes place, the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 257 

spirit returns to the earth, and gets a new body. The 
old body being lost by Hiffusion in the mass of vegetable 
or animal matter, is not raised at all, but there is a new 
creation of a body for the spirit ! Now, as the spirit 
never dies, and the body that it inhabits while here cannot 
be found and re-organized, how, I ask, can there be a 
resurrection ? What is there to be raised ? Not the 
spirit, for that does not go to the grave, or cease to be 
conscious and intelligent ; and not the body, for that is 
lost. Upon his principles, then, there is no such a thing 
as a resurrection. 

I am under no obligation, whatever, to harmonize the 
Bible with any man's difficulties, or with science, falsely 
so called, but to harmonize scripture with scripture. While 
I hold that all truth is harmonious, and that there is 
nothing in the laws of the material universe that clashes 
with those of the moral, still, there is much that is called, 
philosophy and science, that may be arrayed against the 
Bible. 

He thinks that my position not only denies the power, 
but the very existence of God. And why ? Because I 
did not say that God was immaterial ! He argues that if 
I take the ground that he is material, I deny his ubiquity, 
because no two particles of matter can occupy the same 
space at one and the same time. Therefore, if I admit 
that God is omnipresent, I must admit that he is imma- 
terial. But let us see how this would obviate the difficulty. 
My friend, Mr. Connelly, contends that immateriality is 
substance. Will he tell us how two substances can occupy 
the same space at one and the same time ? Come, my 
friend, try your hand at solving this difficulty. 

He says I teach that witches had the power to re-organ- 
ize the bodies of men, make them think, speak, &c. Not 



258 DEBATE ON THE 

at all. It is not in evidence that ^Samuel's body needed 
any re- organizing. He was dead and buried, it is true, 
but this affair between Saul and the witch occurred imme- 
diately after his death. It is said Saul saw him, knew 
him, and bowed his face to the ground. If, as I have 
said, it was Samuel's spirit, it came up from the earth ; 
and it is just as likely that the witch could bring up his 
body from the earth as his spirit. 

His argument from this case is, that the spirit of Samuel 
returned from paradise, in obedience to the behest of a 
witch, and conversed with Saul, and that against his will ; 
for the prophet asked why he was disquieted and brought 
up. This contradicts a fact in the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus — that the dead can make no communication to 
the living without a resurrection. If it was Samuel's 
spirit, God must have wrought a miracle to make it visible, 
and enable it to converse with Saul ; and if so, it would 
contradict another fact, that he had abandoned Saul, and 
refused to answer him by urim, by dreams, or by prophets. 
If he believes that Samuel really ivas brought up by the 
witch, he must admit that it was done bodily, otherwise 
he is involved in the difficulties just mentioned. 

He charges me with making an assault on the views of 
Alexander Campbell, and thinks I ought not to disturb 
those who have not now an opportunity to speak for them- 
selves. For the same reason, he should have forborne to 
make an assault on the views of Dr. Thomas. I did not 
deem his notice of Dr. Thomas offensive or reprehensible, 
because I hold that the published opinions of men are 
public property, and that every man has a right to review 
them, and test them in the crucible of truth. No man 
ought to claim for his writings exemption from criticism 
and refutation. This complaint comes with a bad grace 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 269 

from a party who, of all others, have been the most 
unsparing in their animadversions on the written and 
unwritten opinions of the sects. Mr. Campbell, himself, 
has made war on all churches, creeds, and sects. 

He calls on me to say what the spirit is. In the begin- 
ning of this discussion, I gave him the desired information, 
but lest he has forgotten it, I will repeat it. The word 
means — First — The breath. Second — Vital principle, 
or animal life. Third — Thoughts, affections, temper, or 
disposition of mind. Fourth — The mind of man. Fifth 
— One's self, periphrastically. Sixth — In a few instances 
it means a person ? Will this satisfy his curiosity ? 

I come now to notice some things in his last speech. 
With regard to the gods of heathen worship, he still 
misunderstands me. I repeat, that the idol was all there 
was of the god. The beings they were intended to repre- 
sent had no existence, except in the coaceit of the idolaters. 
It is for this reason they are said to be nothing. God 
charges the Jews with the sin of sacrificing their children 
to the idols of Canaan. And Moses, in prophesying 
their dispersion, said : — " And there ye shall serve 
gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which 
neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell." "And the 
Lord shall scatter thee among all people from the one end 
of the earth even unto the other ; and there thou shalfc 
serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have 
known, even wood and stone." Now, I call upon him to 
say, explicitly, whether there really were such beings as 
Moloch, Baal, and Dagon ? Will he say that the thou- 
sands of gods and demi-gods of Greece and Rome, had 
any real existence ? 

In reference to the gender of paraklctos, (the Holy 
Spirit,) he says, that it is only an office of the Holy Spirit 



260 DEBATE ON THE 

that is put in the masculine gender. You recollect, my 
friends, he challenged me to produce an instance in which 
the Holy Spirit is in the masculine gender. I have done 
it, and now he tries to evade the force of this fact, by 
saying that it is only when filling an office that it is thus 
used ! ! 

Office or no office, I ask him whether paraldctos and 
Holy Spirit, in the passage quoted, are not one and the 
same thing ? Does it not say that the Comforter is the 
Holy Spirit ? Again : let him show that the human 
spirit in any of its operations or offices is put in the 
masculine gender. 

He says, if the evils I have enumerated are necessary 
consequences of his doctrine, they must follow in the case 
of every person who believes it. Not so. Many men 
who are avowed atheists, are moral men, good neighbors, 
and inoffensive in .their habits ; but does this clear 
atheism of the imputation of being mischievous and 
demoralizing in its tendency ? Certainly not. Because 
some people are better than their doctrines, it does not 
follow that their doctrines are harmless. 

He admits that both soul and spirit die ! This is very 
candid. Then the body, soul and spirit all die, and of 
course are in the same condition after death. Heretofore 
he only admitted that the man died — that death was a 
separation of the spirit from the body. This separation 
was the death of the man. The spirit and body were 
only 'parts of the man. When the separation occurred 
the body ceased to be conscious, but the spirit did not. 
Now, he admits that not only the man, but the parts of 
the man die, and it is reasonable to presume that all the 
parts are alike after death. If death is a separation of 
the spirit from the body, and by this separation the man 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 261 

dies, will he tell us whether the spirit is separated again 
and from what ? 

I cannot believe that he understood me to mean that 
the word soul is used in five or six different senses in the 
same verse or connection. I quoted a number of passages 
in which it occurs, and in some it is used in one sense and 
in some in another. This is all I meant, and he must 
have so understood it. But as he is hard pressed for 
capital, I will, allow him the benefit of this puerility. 

He labors to make some of my definitions of soul ludic- 
rous by substituting the definition for the word in certain 
texts. Suppose we try his definition by the same rule. 
With him the word soul in Rev. vi, means the immortal 
or never-dying part of man. Now try it. " And when 
he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the 
never-dying part of man which was slain," &c. "And 
they (the souls) cried, how long, Lord, dost thou not 
avenge our blood," &c. So you see according to him the 
never-dying soul or spirit is distressed about its blood ! ! 

I asked him to tell us what the spirit knew before it 
came from God? He cannot tell ; but infers that because 
the spirit is conscious now it must be so after death. By 
the same parity of reasoning he may infer because the body 
has sensibility now, it will have after it returns to- dust ! 

He could not have understood me either to say or mean 
that Mr. Campbell ever denounced me personally for my 
views of the dead, or any other doctrine. But he has 
denounced the doctrine, and many who hold it as unworthy 
of Christian fellowship, in direct and palpable violation of 
all his professions, pledges, and promises. When he 
commenced his reformation, he invited all sects and 
parties to unite with him on the Bible, with a guarantee 
of liberty to think for themselves. But it has turned out 



262 DEBATE OK THE 

to be the liberty of thinking as he does or go out Of his 
rt format ion. This fact is now well understood by the 
whole religious community in this country. And hence 
it is that the reformers have become ashamed to cry out 
against the sects for intolerance. No well informed 
person can longer doubt, that in this respect, they are as 
much of a sect as any in Christendom. 

He is now fairly out of the Bible — in heathen mytho- 
logy, in search of evidence to prove that demons were 
regarded by the ancients as the spirits of dead men and 
that the Saviour and his apostles subscribed to this tenet 
of paganism. We will suppose, then, for the sake of the 
argument that he has proved it. What, I ask, will be the 
legitimate conclusions from it ? In the first place it will 
follow that all he has said about the spirits being impris- 
oned is false. So far from their being in prison or hades 
they are in men. A legion inhabited one man, and when 
expelled from him, they entered a herd of swine ! ! 

Secondly — It necessitates the conclusion that the rich 
man could have returned to the earth, and, if necessary, 
could have entered his five brethren ! ! ! 

Thirdly — It also follows that there is no place of 
torment, nor is there any punishment between death and 
the general judgment ; for the demons asked the Saviour 
if he had come to torment them before the time. His 
interpretation of the parable of Dives and Lazarus is all 
wrong if his demonology be true ; for Dives was tor- 
mented and confined to a certain place from which he 
could not return to this world. 

About the best witness he will ever get for the assump- 
tion that demons were men, will be Hesiod, who wrote a 
fabulous history of the heathen gods, in which he ascribes 
to them the most abominable crimes, such as theft, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 263 

murder, <fcc. Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, and others con- 
demned his genealogy as disgraceful and absurd, and 
taught that demons were an order of beings between the 
gods and men. 

But he quotes Webster to prove his point. And what 
does he say about demons. Why, simply that they were 
a class of beings between men and the gods, and that it 
was supposed that the spirits of men, after their departure 
from the body, became demons, and from demons some- 
times were promoted to be gods ! All supposition and 
nothing else. They were considered by the heathen 
nations as distinct a class from men as angels are by the 
Christian world. But they thought that men might be 
made demons after death, as Christians now suppose they 
may be made angels. 

Alexander Campbell indorses George Campbell's dis- 
sertation on the devil and demons, the amount of which 
is, as they both admit, that they cannot decide "whether 
demons were conceived to be the ghosts of wicked men 
deceased, lapsed angels, or (as was the opinion of some 
early Christian writers) the mongrel breed of certain 
angels, (whom they understood by the "sons of God" 
mentioned in Genesis) and "the daughters of men" it is 
plain they were conceived to be malignant spirits. The 
descriptive titles given them always denote some ill quality 
or other. They are represented as the causes of the 
most direful calamities to the unhappy persons whom they 
possess, such as deafness, dumbness, madness," <fec. 

Here, then, is a frank acknowledgment that they know 
nothing certain about them. It is evident the Bible no 
where says that they are human spirits. Of this much 
we can be certain. 

Herodotus says "the Egyptians are the first of mankind 



£64 DEBATE ON THE 

who taught the immortality of the soul. They believed 
that on the dissolution of the body, the soul immediately 
entered some other animal, and after using as a vehicle 
every species of terrestial, aquatic, and winged creatures, 
it finally entered a second time into a human body." 

On this, Gibbon remarks — " The Egyptian mummies 
were embalmed, and their pyramids constructed, with a 
view to preserve the ancient mansion of the soul during a 
period of three thousand years, when they supposed it 
would be re-occupied by the soul. The intermediate state 
of the soul it is hard to decide — and those who most 
believed in her immateriality were at a loss to understand 
■ — how she could think or act, ivithout the agency of the 
organs of sense " 

The translator of Herodotus says " the Platonic doctrine 
esteemed the body a kind of prison with respect to the 
soul. Somewhat similar to this was the opinion of the 
Marcionites, who called the death of the body the resur- 
rection of the soul." 

"I know," says Pausanius, *f that the Chaldean and 
Indian Magi have been the first who asserted the immor- 
tality of the soul." Larcher says "Moses, who was anterior 
to Sesostris, heard no mention of it. It is, indeed, known 
that the immortality of the soul was not known to the 
Jews but by the commerce they had with the Assyrians, 
during the time of their captivity." (See Larcher's trans- 
lation of Herodotus.) 

Dr. Good says: — "If we turn from Egypt, Persia, 
and Hindostan to Arabia, to the fragrant groves and 
learned shades of Dedan and Teman, we shall find the 
entire doctrine (of the immortality of the soul) left in as 
blank and barren a silence as the deserts by which they 
are surrounded ; or if touched upon, only to betray doubt, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 2G5 

and sometimes disbelief. The tradition, indeed, of a 
future state of retributive justice seems to have reached 
the schools of this part of the world, and seems to have 
been generally, though not universally, accredited. But 
ilte future existence it alludes to is that of a resurrection of 
the body, and not of a survival of the soul after a dissolution 
of the body." Dr. Good continues — " In the sublime and 
magnificent poem, (the book of Job) replete with all the 
learning and wisdom of the age, the doctrine upon the 
subject before us is merely as I have stated it — a patri- 
archal or traditionary belief in a future state, not by the 
natural immortality of the soul, but by a resurrection of 
the body." He further says — " The Hindoo philosophers 
totally and universally denying a resurrection of the body, 
and supporting the doctrine of future existence alone upon 
the natural immortality of the soul, and the Arabian 
philosophers (among whom was Job) passing over the 
immortality of the soul, and resting alone on the resurrec- 
tion of the body." 

In these extracts we have the paternity of my friend's 
doctrine pointed out. Authorities can be multiplied to 
almost any extent in attestation of the fact, that it is of 
heathen origin. Plato greatly improved and modified the 
philosophy of his predecessors on this subject. Ammo- 
nius Saccas,one of his disciples, introduced it into the 
Alexandrian school — Origen became enamored with it, 
and by him it was intermixed with the Christian religion, 
and thus the theology and literature of all Christendom 
become corrupted by it. It is in our churches, schools, 
and colleges, pulpits, and forums, and so operates on the 
pride and folly of the human heart, as to set the omnipo- 
tence of God at defiance. Let me give you a sample of 
the pride and self-sufficiency which it inspires. Marcus 
23 



266 DEBATE ON THE 

Cato, a Roman statesman, who espoused the cause of 
Pompey, in the civil war between him and Caesar, on 
hearing of the death of Pompey, determined on self- 
destruction. Before he struck the fatal blow, he read 
Plato on the immortality of the soul, and thus soliloquized 
— " The soul shall live forever. It must be so. Plato, 
thou reasonest well. Else why this pleasing hope, this 
fond desire, this longing after immortality ? Or whence 
this secret dread and inward horror of falling: into naught ? 
Why shrinks the soul back on herself, and startles at 
destruction ? ' Tis the divinity that stirs within us / ' Tis 
heaven itself points out a hereafter, and intimates eternity 
to man. Thou pleasing dreadful thought. Through what 
variety of untried being, through what new scenes and 
changes must we pass ? The wide unbounded prospect lies 
before me, but shadows, clouds and darkness rest upon it. 
Here I will hold. If there is a power above us, he must 
delight in virtue, and what he delights in must be happy, 
while heaven informs me I shall- never die. The soul secure 
in her own existence, smiles at dissolution, and defies its 
power. The stars shall fade, the sun himself grow dim with 
age, and nature sink in years. But thou [the soul) shall 
flourish in immortal youth, unhurt amid the ivar of elements, 
the wreck of matter, and the crush of worlds ! ! " 

Here we have a grandiloquent display of the wisdom 
of this world which is foolishness with God. Here is a 
sample of the evil tendency of the doctrine. To this day 
our modern Christian philosophers speak of death as a 
shuffling off this mortal coil." Like the Platonists they 
regard the body as a prison, and death an escape from it ! 
Mr. Campbell and his party committed a great blunder 
when they incorporated this heathen philosophy with the 
theology and literature of their reformation. [Tune out.] 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 26' 



MR. CONNELLY'S SIXTEENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

When I last took ray seat I was presenting an 
argument founded on the demonology of the Bible, which 
I will complete before I review the doctor's last reply. 
Our first object is to ascertain the meaning of the word 
demon. And for this purpose we have already given you 
the result of Dr. Webster's investigation on that subject, 
and also the testimony of Hesiod, one of the oldest 
writers known to the world. This testimony is indorsed 
by Plutarch, who adds : The demons of the Greeks were 
the ghosts or spirits of departed men. Josephus, the 
distinguished Jewish historian, who wrote his history in 
the Greek language, and who of course was perfectly 
conversant with the meaning of this term, says, demons 
are the spirits of wicked men, De bella jud., b. 7, chap. 
6, 5, 3. Justin Martyr says, those who are seized and 
tormented by the souls of the dead, whom all call demons. 
Apology, b. 1, p. 55. To these we will add the testimony 
of the learned Dr. Lardner, who, after examining these 
and all the fathers of the first two centuries, says : " The 
notion of demons or the souls of dead men having power 
over living men was universally prevalent among the 
heathens, and believed by man)^ Christians." Now in view 
of these authorities can there be a doubt as to the meaning 
of this word in the days of the Saviour and his apostles, 
as well as before and after their days ? But this the 
doctor says, is fairly out of the Bible. What does he 
mean by such a declaration. That the Bible is a dictionary? 
and that we have no right to appeal elsewhere for the 



268 DEBATE ON THE 

meaning of words ? surely he would not assume a position 
so absurd, or is it only an appeal ad captandum ? Well, 
let us bring it into the Bible and see how the case stands. 
My argument then is this : The inspired writers always 
used terms in their accredited meanings in the times when 
they wrote, unless they had a stated or appropriated 
meaning. This I believe is a universally admitted canon. 
Indeed to deny it would be to deny a revelation from God. 
For there could be no certainty in arriving at the meaning 
of any thing they have said. This word is found in the 
New Testament, as used by the Saviour and his apostles 
some seventy five times and in no instance have we the 
slightest intimation that it is used in an appropriated 
meaning, hence they used it in its common popular accep- 
tation. This, as we have shown by unquestionable 
authority, is the spirit of the departed dead. Therefore 
the Saviour and his apostles have indisputably indorsed 
and taught the doctrine of separate conscious spirits after 
death. There is no way of escaping this argument unless 
it can be shown that we have not given the common import 
of this word, or that the writers of the New Testament 
have not so used it. Neither of which can be done. 
Hence, my argument here stands as firm as the pillars of 
heaven, and teaches the truth of my proposition as plain 
as the sun at noon when no cloud intervenes. 

It affects the doctor as we had anticipated; for he had 
sought to escape from some other points by referring 
them to demons, whom he admits to be spirits. Hence, 
he attempts to create a fog of uncertainty in which he 
may be able to escape. 

He says it cannot be determined whether demons are 
fallen angels, or the spirits of men, or a mongrel breed, 
part angel and part man ! And does Dr. Field believe 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 269 

that such a mongrel breed does really exist ? It would 
seem so, or he could at least tell that demons are not 
mongrels ! Again, if he is right in saying, that it cannot 
be determined whether demons are the spirits of men, or 
lapsed angels, &c, he thereby admits that he cannot 
determine, but what my position is true, and thus concedes 
that his whole effort, for the four days we have been 
debating, is a failure. This is evidently both candid and 
just. 

He places great stress on the word supposed in Webster's 
definition of demon, and adds that it js all supposition and 
nothing else. JSTow, whether the ancients believed that 
demons were the spirits of the dead by mere supposition 
or by some other means, is a matter of no consequence, 
neither to my argument or to the fact, for it cannot be 
denied that such was their faith, and its being indorsed 
by the Saviour and his apostles removes all supposition 
and doubt as to its truth. 

But if my argument on demonology is true, the doctor 
imagines that all I have said about the spirits being in 
prison is false ! ! Miserabile dictu ! Wonderful to relate ! 
And what, I would ask, have I said on that subject incom- 
patible with the doctrine of demonology ? To prove 
the personality of the spirit, I quoted the language of 
Peter with reference to the spirits in prison, but concerning 
the nature of the prison, there has been no necessity for 
making any remarks, nor is it now necessary. But will 
my friend deny that prisoners may have such privileges 
as were possessed by the demons and still remain 
prisoners ? This difficulty exists alone in the doctor's 
imagination. 

.If my demonology is correct, he thinks my exposition 
of the case of the rich man and Lazarus is not correct ! 



270 DEBATE ON THE 

But why ? because he says it necessitates the conclusion, 
that the rich man might have returned and entered his 
brethren. Well, what of all that, what is inconsistent in 
the two conclusions ? Why, Dr. Field says, he was con- 
fined in a place of torment from which he could not return 
to earth. Will he please tell us where he gets his infor- 
mation ! He was tormented ; but who told Dr. Field that 
he could not return ? The demons asked the Saviour if 
he had come to torment them before the time ; therefore, 
he thinks there can be no punishment between death and 
resurrection of the dead ! ! For the same reason he ought 
to conclude that there is no punishment here. The doctor 
has surely been taking lessons in the school of Univer- 
salism. But notwithstanding these imaginary difficulties 
the doctor has not dared to deny the correctness of my 
argument and I doubt very much if he will be able to 
muster the moral courage to deny it. 

We have been told again and again that the doctrine of 
my proposition is a figment of heathen mythology. This 
he makes quite an effort to prove, in his last speech. And 
what if it had been believed by the heathens first. Would 
not its indorsement by the Saviour give it sufficient author- 
ity ? But we need only look at the nature of his evidence 
to see that this often repeated statement is wholly gratui- 
tous. The whole amount of evidence is, that somebody 
has said that somebody else says so. None of them give 
one single fact to prove it so. But one fact ever has been 
given, so far as I have seen, and that is alluded to in the 
extract quoted from Dr. Good. And who, I would ask, 
is this Dr. Good ? Will my friend inform us what school 
he is of? But to the point I was about to state; it is 
this — that in the writings of Moses and the prophets 
no allusion is made to the immortality of the soul. To 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 271 

this we reply, first, that it is not the immortality of the 
soul we are contending for, but the continued conscious 
existence of the spirit after death, which the doctor, how- 
ever, confounds with immortality. But of this in its 
proper place. But, secondly, we reply that the logic by 
which this doctrine is shown to be of heathen paternity, is 
exceedingly erroneous ; for it assumes that all that is from 
God was made known in the first development of his 
revelation ; and that whatever is not found in these, is of 
heathen origin. The doctrine of separate conscious spirits, 
they think, is not found in these early writings, and there- 
fore conclude this doctrine is from the heathen. By this 
same logic, our Universalist neighbors prove that the 
doctrine of future judgment and future punishment is of 
the heathens. And by the same logic, they might prove 
that the doctrine of a resurrection, and, indeed, all the 
most cherished doctrines of the Bible, are mere figments of 
heathen philosophy. For the full development of all these 
Lave been made since the dispersion. 

Thirdly — It is not true that no trace of this doctrine 
can be found in the first books of the Bible. Job, one of 
the oldest writers, if not the oldest writer known, in the 
first text quoted in this discussion not only sustains my 
definition of death, but clearly distinguishes between the 
body and spirit, and points out their different destinies. 
" If he set his heart upon man ; if he gather unto himself 
his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, 
and man shall turn again unto dust." Again, the laws 
proclaimed against necromancy most clearly show that 
the people believed that the dead were conscious ; for we 
cannot account for their consulting the dead on any other 
hypothesis. 

Fourthly — If no traces could be found of it in the 



272 DEBATE ON THE 

earlier writings, its being indorsed by the Saviour is suffi- 
cient to insure its truth. 

He says I will not plainly deny that man returns to 
dust. I deny plainly and emphatically that any thing 
returns to dust except the body. How and why the term 
man is sometimes applied to the body, has been explained 
in the early part of the debate. But he says, I call on him 
to explain the resurrection in harmony with my views, <&c. 
If he will explain it in harmony with his own it would do. 

He does not deny that man's identity will be lost at 
death on his own position, nor that it will require a re- 
organization. Then coglto, ergo sum is not true. 

Now, we have not intimated that God, who made man 
from dust at first, can make man from dust again, but 
that there must be a re-creation, and not a resurrection, 
to do this, as every one must see. But he is under no 
obligation to harmonize the Bible with any man's diffi- 
culties. It is well he feels thus free, for otherwise he 
would be obliged to do, with reference to the difficulties 
arising from his philosophy, what cannot be done. But 
lie thinks I am in the same condition, so far as the body 
is concerned. This I have explained in a former speech, 
by showing that death is a separation of body (or matter) 
and spirit, and that the resurrection is, therefore, a re-union 
of spirit and matter, and this being true, the same particles 
of matter in the same body are no more necessary in order 
to a re-union, than that the same particles should remain 
at all times the same here to perpetuate the union. Hence 
his difficulties about a resurrection on my view, is wholly 
imaginary. 

His intimation that the principles I have thrown in his 
way from science are false, is wholly gratuitous. • For if 
they are not true, there is nothing true in science. The 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 273 

insinuation is evidently made because he cannot meet them. 
Then let him show that they are not true. 

The doctor does not deny that his materialist prin- 
ciples denies the existence of God, and is, therefore, 
atheism. And this, my friends, is the substitute he would 
make for that pernicious figment of heathen mythology, 
from which he has come to free us ! How kind ! how 
benevolent ! But he tries to console himself a little by 
asking me how two substances can occupy the same space 
at the same time ! He is quite a philosopher, truiy ! His 
difficulty here proceeds from a very fruitful source of error 
with him — a confounding of terms which are in them- 
selves distinct. The term matter is applicable to what is 
appreciable by the senses, and is opposed to spirit. The 
fact that spirit is substance, neither renders it matter nor 
nothing. Every living human being furnishes an example 
of two substances, body and spirit, occupying the same 
space at the same time. So there is no aid at this point. 
The better way, doctor, would be to give up your notions 
of materialism altoo-ether. 

o 

Our attention is again called to the case of Samuel. 
The doctor does not deny that if Samuel's body had been 
dissolved, it must have been re-organized by the witch. 
But he says there is no evidence that it needed re-organ- 
izing — the death of Samuel was immediately before the 
affair between Saul and Samuel. How any one can read 
the connection, note the chronology, and come to such a 
conclusion, I am not able to see. According to the most 
approved chronology, Samuel died in the year 1060 before 
Christ, and the affair between Saul and Samuel occurred 
in the year 1056, after he had been dead and buried four 
years. And yet there is no evidence that the body needed 
re-organizing ! ! Will he tell us how long a body must 



274 DEBATE ON THE 

be after death before it dissolves. And will lie also tell 
us where he learns from the parable of Dives and Lazarus 
that the dead can make no communication to the living 
without a resurrection ? 

He justifies his assault on Mr. Campbell, by charging 
me with having made a similar one on Dr. Thomas. This 
is altogether gratuitous. I have neither reviewed nor 
attempted to review Dr. Thomas's views at any time 
during the discussion. Campbell's views are public pro- 
perty, I grant ; and I did not complain simply of the fact 
that he noticed Campbell's views, but that he should pass 
so far out of his way, and leave my speech unnoticed, to 
make war on brother Campbell. 

In ansAver to my question, what is the spirit of man, he 
repeats his definitions, considerably revised, and asks if I 
am now satisfied. I answer no, for he has only avoided 
the question. This word, like all other words, has a 
leading meaning. There is something in man emphatically 
called the spirit, and it was for this I inquired, but in vain. 
He at first professed to quote his definitions from Webster. 
some of which are neither found in Webster, or any other 
standard author on the language. Where, for example, 
is the vital principle given as a definition of the English 
word spirit ? Again, there are many texts where the 
word spirit occurs, in which none of his definitions will 
answer. Take, as an example, Acts xxiii, 8, " For the 
Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel 
nor spirit.** Now, can any one believe that the Sadducees 
denied either breath, life, thoughts, mind, one's self, or 
person ? So that none of these definitions will do here* 
even were they all correct ? 

Our attention is again called to the gender of pncuma. 
That my position with regard to this word is right, no 



STATE OF TIIS DEAD. 275 

scholar will question. When the doctor first blundered 
on this, it was a new argument, subversive of my whole 
theory. But after I exposed it, it would prove nothing 
by itself, and yet he cannot give it up. It is original. 
And I am called on again for an example where the 
human spirit, in any of its offices, is in any other than 
neuter gender. Lest we are wearied by his importunities, 
I must accommodate him. I have just demonstrated that 
the word demon is used with reference to the spirit of 
man. It is either masculine or feminine. Angels are 
spirits, and are masculine, as he admits ; and I feel confi- 
dent that had I time I could find an example of the human, 
spirit being in the same gender. Again, I have shown 
that psuchce (soul) is used in some texts for spirit. This 
word is feminine gender. In order to make my definition 
of soul, in the sixth chapter of Revelation, ridiculous, he 
makes a definition for me, and substitutes that. Why 
this, but from a consciousness that he could not expose 
mine. Give my own, doctor — the immaterial, intelli- 
gent part of man- — and then submit the substitute to an 
intelligent public. [ Time out.] 



DR. FIELD'S SIXTEENTH REPLY. 

Brethern and Friends : 

We are notified in the scriptures that in the latter 
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to 
seducing spirits and the doctrines of demons. I am almost 
afraid we have this prediction verified on the present 
occasion. We have some very interesting teaching on the 
origin, nature, and influence of this mysterious class of 



27(3 DEBATE ON THE 

beings. My friend, Mr. Connelly, seems to know all 
about them — their privileges, powers of locomotion, and 
their whereabouts. Not being* able, however, to determine 
these knotty questions from the Bible, he obtains abundant 
light from Josephus, Justin Martyr, and Dr. Lardner. 
It is a little surprising, however, if this information is so 
abundant and reliable in the records of profane history, 
that such men as George Campbell, and Alexander 
Campbell should have been so much at a loss to decide 
who the demons were ! Whether they were the ghosts of 
dead men or lapsed angels, was not settled to their satis- 
faction by either Christian or heathen writers. But all 
doubt is now solved by Josephus, Dr. Lardner, and my 
friend, Mr. Connelly. As to Justin Martyr, there is no 
authentic evidence that he ever wrote a syllable upon 
the subject. He is one of the early Christian fathers to 
whom any thing and every thing is now and then ascribed. 
There is no doctrine however false and unscriptural which 
may not be defended on the authority of one or all of the 
Christian fathers. This fact goes to show that either 
their genuine writings have not come down to us, or, that 
if they have, they are so corrupted and interpolated as 
not to be depended on. As it happens I have the 
Apochryphal New Testament containing the writings 
of several of the contemporaries and successors of the 
apostles, which I have read carefully, and I find nothing 
in them favorable to his views, but every thing against him. 
Justin Martyr is not one of them ; but admitting that he 
wrote what is attributed to him, it is no proof of the point 
assumed, for the best of all reasons, it receives no coun- 
tenance from scripture. 

I take it, my friends, that the heathen philosophers 
were better judges of what they believed than either 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 277 

Josephus or Dr. Lardner. Josephus was very fond of the 
marvellous, as his story of the Dead Sea, and other 
matters equally fabulous, abundantly prove. He was 
very accommodating in his religious sentiments, especially 
to his captors. 

In Stanley's lives of the philosophers, a synopsis of 
which was published in 1804, giving their views on 
this subject, the souls of men are placed next in rank to 
demons. 

My friend, Mr. Connelly, assumes that the gods wor- 
shiped by the heathen nations were the souls of their 
heroes, and were called demons. Then the souls of dead 
men are, in some cases at least, gods. This is giving 
them greater dignity and promotion than that promised 
by Satan ; for he only told Adam and Eve that they 
should "be as gods," not gods or demons as you have 
been told, but like them. 

There is no dispute as to the fact that the heathen 
nations, or at least a majority of them, believed in the 
separate existence of human spirits. But it is by no 
means certain that the mass of them considered them 
identical with demons. That individuals among them did, 
is quite probable. There is no evidence, whatever, that 
either the prophets, the Saviour, or the apostles indorsed 
the dogma that the ghosts of men and demons were one 
and the same. On the contrary, a marked distinction is 
made in the New Testament between men and devils. The 
latter are said to believe and tremble, and are, doubtless, 
the fallen angels, for whom the fires of the second are 
prepared. It is something singular, that my friend, Mr. 
C, takes no notice of this class of beings. In his eao-er- 
ness to prove that the spirits of dead men are doing all 
the mischief in the world, he overlooks the devil and his 



278 DEBATE ON THE 

angels. He says I assert that it cannot be determined 
whether demons are the ghosts of men, the fallen angels, 
or the mongrel progeny of angels and men. There is no 
difficulty in my mind on this subject ; it is with Alexander 
Campbell, as I showed from his critical notes on the word. 
Notwithstanding he is the most profound demonologist in 
America, he does not know who they are, or what the 
ancients thought about them. The word demon is generic, 
and means a knowing one, and is as applicable to the fallen 
angels as to the spirits of men, even supposing them to 
exist consciously after death, as my friend's demonology 
teaches. 

The idea that the Saviour and the apostles sanctioned 
the dogmas of heathen philosophy with regard to demons 
and the human soul, is monstrous. He might as well 
affirm that, because the heathen used the word god in 
their mythology, therefore the Saviour, by using the same 
word, sanctioned their superstitions and absurdities with 
regard to the Creator and Governor of the universe. The 
etymology of the word demon shows that it might, with 
all propriety, be used by the Saviour and his apostles as 
the name of beings different and distinct from those to 
whom it was applied by some of the pagan philosophers. 

We are told that communications can be made from the 
dead to the living without a resurrection ; and that Dives 
could have returned to this world ; for those in hell have 
many privileges, such as traveling about from place to 
place, not at all incompatible with their imprisonment ! 
This will be good news to the wicked, who will not need a 
Lazarus to give warning to their friends, or even give 
them a drop of water. Having the right and power to 
pass the impassable gulf, they can escape the torturing 
flame, and go where they please ! This is certainly good 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 279 

news, for which they are indebted to the science of demo- 
nology, as expounded on this occasion. 

He says if there is no punishment between death and 
the resurrection, there is no punishment here ! The gist 
of this argument is, that if men are not punished while 
dead, they cannot be while alive ! 

He asks, with an air of surprise, who is Dr. Good, and 
what school is he of ? I supposed every scholar knew 
something about Dr. John Mason Good, the celebrated 
author of the Book of Nature. So far as the question in 
debate is concerned, he was of my friend Mr. Connelly's 
school. In his lecture on the nature and duration of the 
human soul, he traces the doctrine of its immortality to 
its source, and that, too, for the purpose of proving it. 
The fact that he finds nothing of it in Arabia, the country 
of Job, or in the records of the Bible, but in theVedas, 
Zendavesta, and mythological creeds of the heathen world, 
is an irrefragable argument against his conclusions. 

He says, by assuming that his doctrine is of heathen 
origin, I adopt the logic of the Universalists, when they 
undertake to prove that there is no future day of judgment 
and future punishment ; because such ideas were enter- 
tained by the heathen ; and by this process of induction, 
he thinks the most cherished truths of the Bible might be 
disproved. I reply, that the doctrine of a future judg- 
ment, future punishment, and a resurrection from the dead, 
are clearly and indubitably taught in the Bible, regardless 
of what heathen mythology may say on these subjects. 

But he thinks he finds a trace of it in Job. But, unfor- 
tunately for him, Job does not say so. The assertion, as 
I have shown, rests on the most flimsy kind of inferential 
reasoning, contradicted by explicit declarations of this 
ancient writer. 



280 DEBATE ON THE 

But, after all, necromancy is the magic wand that 
removes the veil, and discloses to us the world of human 
spirits. Like the magnetic telegraph, it brings us intelli- 
gence which cannot be obtained by any other agency, and 
thus settles the question that the dead have knowledge ! 
Necromancy can dig into the lower parts of the earth, 
unlock hades, and make revelations from the ghosts of 
dead men, that neither prophets nor apostles ever learned 
or dreamed of ! ! 

This imposture must be accredited as inspiration itself, 
" because the Jews believed it." And what if they did 
believe it ? Does that make it true ? No, my friends. 
The very fact that it was an imposture, a delusion, is 
the reason why God forbid their having any thing to do 
with it. 

He denies, positively, that man returns to dust. Noth- 
ing, he says, but the body does. This assertion contradicts 
the text he quoted from Job, which says positively that 
man docs return to dust. It not only contradicts Job, but 
other inspired writers. He and they for it, then. 

He admits that a new body is created for the spirit. 
All that is needed for this purpose is matter. This, then, 
settles the question that, according to his views, there is 
no resurrection of any thing whatever. The spirit is not 
raised from the dead, and the old body is lost or dispensed 
with, and a new one made ! ! Was there ever any thing 
in reformation theology more monstrous ? 

I will now notice one of his sophisms. It is this. He 
defines substance to be something different from matter, 
and then tells us that they can occupy the same place at 
the same time, therefore, I am an atheist for not believing 
certain deductions of his from these premises ! This is 
not what I asked him. I called on him to say whether 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 281 

two substances can occupy the same place at one and the 
same time ; and not whether matter and substance can do 
it. He has evaded the answer, and expects to hide the 
point in this fallacy. I call upon him again to say whether 
two substances can occupy the same place at the same 
time ? 

He says Samuel's body was buried four years before 
Saul called on the witch to raise him ; and for proof of 
this he depends on the marginal notes of the publishers 
of the Bible ! Let any one read the history of the trans- 
action, and he will see that he has no authority for his 
chronology. It is after the Philistines had assembled for 
war against Israel, that the death of Samuel is mentioned, 
and before the first battle was fought, his resurrection is 
mentioned. (See 1 Samuel xxiii.) 

He says, none of my definitions of spirit will do in Acts 
xxiii, 8, where it is said the Sadducees deny the resurrec- 
tion of both angel and spirit. Why not ? One of my 
definitions of spirit is a person or man. Now try it. They 
denied the resurrection of both angel and man. And that 
is just what they did do, for they did not believe in the 
separate existence of spirits. 

It is really amusing to see how my friend, Mr. C, 
proves that human spirits are sometimes in the masculine 
gender. The process is somewhat circuitous. He first 
proves, to his own satisfaction, that demons are human 
spirits, and they are of that gender. "While in the body 
they are neuter, but when out of it they are masculine ! 
He next assumes, that in certain cases the word soul and 
spirit mean the same thing, and in these instances the soul 
is feminine, and, therefore, the spirit is in that gender too ! 
Yet he has told us that the word spirit is always in the 
neuter gender ! 
24 



282 DEBATE ON THE 

That the word soul is sometimes found in the feminine 
gender, is all true, but it is all assumption that in the 
instances in which he finds it in the feminine gender, it 
means the spirit. 

I have called on him to say in what sense the spirits in 
liadcs are dead, but he will not answer. Evidently he 
feels that this is a hard question — one which cannot be 
answered without subverting his doctrine, or involving 
himself in the grossest absurdity. 

Once more I ask him to tell this intelligent audience in 
what sense those who are in hades are dead ? If he do 
not remove or explain this difficulty his cause is lost — 
irretrievably lost. 

I will now treat you, my friends, to a few more speci- 
mens of modern Platonism. And, first, I will read an 
extract from a late number of a Cumberland Presbyterian 
paper, called the Theological Medium. It says : " The 
soul of the impenitent, after death, will be in a state of 
suffering. The body will be in the grave. When the 
judgment trumpet shall have sounded, the soul, like a 
guilty thing, started on a fearful summons, will come 
forth from the prison house of woe. Convulsed with 
anguish, studied with rage, and weeping tears of blood, it 
will return to earth and seek the spot of earth where the 
body was interred. Hovering over the grave, I can, 
methinks, hear it say — ■ Come forth, thou cell of my 
former iniquity ; come forth, thou hated, detested com- 
panion of my former guilt ; we have sinned together, we 
have violated God's commands together. Come forth, and 
partake of my suffering and punishment ! ' The grave 
rends. Wide open it cleaves. Up rises the body. It 
responds to the soul, ■ Hail, my old companion. I know 
thee well. I hate, I detest, I abhor thee. Thou horrid 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 283 

guilty thing, why comest thou hither ? But I know thy 
errand. It is but meet. We sinned together, and should 
be tormented together. Come, let us unite in perpetual 
and jarring discord. We lived on earth in sin and rebel- 
lion ; it is but proper that we should together be punished 
in that dismal world, where punishment knows no end." 

Here we have quite an interesting colloquy between 
the soul and the body. The confinement of the soul in 
prison until the judgment trumpet sounds, without the 
privilege of returning to earth, and the resurrection of 
the old body, cannot be harmonized with my friend's 
views ; although the Medium is considered orthodox on 
the subject of the soul, with perhaps a single exception, 
that of its weeping tears of blood. Some of the evangelicals 
might dissent from such gross ideas of materiality. 

But here is another precious morsel, which I extracted, 
a few days ago, from one of the Louisville papers : — 
" Death of John Tomlin. — The death of this gentleman 
is announced in the last number of the West Tennessee 
Whig. He died recently in the Charity Hospital, New 
Orleans. Domestic troubles and reverses of fortune had 
for many years rendered his life unhappy, and forced him 
to seek relief in the fatal cup. In his death, a noble and 
generous spirit has taken its exit from earth, and now 
mingles in a more congenial throng beyond the Stygian 
river." Platonism and Grecian mythology have placed 
this unfortunate inebriate in as good a condition as could 
be desired. Beyond the Stygian river ! In the Elysian 
fields, no doubt. A much better place than a coffee 
house or the Charity Hospital. 

Here is another. " Died, on the 1 1th inst., in Lagrange, 
Ky., , youngest son of the late and , for- 
merly of Louisville, aged fourteen months. 



284 DEBATE ON THE 

Of little well may it be said, 

That in the spring-time of life he fled 
From earth to a home in the skies, 
Where such as he never, never dies." 

This is very consoling, and yet it is more than likely, 
there was bitter lamentation in consequence of this happy 
transition, 

These Platonic speculations and Utopian ideas, which 
anticipate and forestall a day of judgment, and a resurrec- 
tion of the dead, when men shall be rewarded according 
to their works, pervade our Christian psalmody. Our 
hymn books are full of such painted moonshine. They 
abound with sentiments calculated to destroy the true hope 
of the gospel. Our cemeteries bear testimony to the 
prevalence of the wide-spread delusions of the vain phi- 
losophy of this world, against which we are cautioned. 
The following is a transcript of an epitaph on a tombstone 
in one of our cemeteries : — 

•' Now in her snow white shroud she lies, 
Her lily lids half veil her eyes, 
As if she looked with wild surprise, 
Up to her soul in paradise. 
Her hands lie folded on her breast, 
Crossed like the cross that gave her rest ; 
She looks as if some heavenly guest 
Had told her that her soal was blessed." 

Compare this with a passage in Ovid, who wrote before 
the Christian era, and you will see that it is pure, unmixed 
Platonism : 

" Nor dies the spirit, but new life repeats 

In other forms, and only changes seats ; 

Then death, so called, is but old matter dressed, 

In some new figure and a varied rest. 

Thus all things are altered. Nothing dies. 

Death, so called, can but the form deface, 

The immortal soul flies out to seek her fortune ! " 

[Time out.'] 



STATE OF THE DEAD, 285 



MR. CONNELLY'S SEVENTEENTH SPEECH. 

Brethren and Fellow Citizens : 

With this speech, this discussion, on my part, will 
close, according to agreement. I must, therefore, notice 
a few things in the last speeches of my friend, before I 
recapitulate my arguments. 

In his last speech this forenoon, he asked me the pro- 
found question, how much the spirit knew before it came 
from God, and supposed that, if I was right ingenious, 
I might make it know quite as much after it returns to 
God, as it did before it came from him. To this I replied, 
without making any pretentions to ingenuity, that the 
logic of this question was this — as the spirit knew noth- 
ing before it was created, therefore it knows nothing after 
it is created. In his first speech this afternoon, he fur- 
nishes quite a specimen of that fairness of which he 
boasted to us on yesterday, by saying that I infer that 
because the spirit is conscious now, it must be so after 
death ! Now, I infer no such thing. But I do say that 
the fact that the spirit knows nothing before it came from 
God, or before it was created, militates no more against 
its consciousness after death, than it does against its 
consciousness now. 

His remarks about Mr. Campbell's violation of his 
guarantee, in his ofFer of union with all, on the Bible 
alone, are, of course, irrelevant, and out of place. But 
as the subject is before us, I would simply remark, that if 
Dr. Field, or any one else, has understood Mr. Campbell's 
proposition for union as an offer to embrace every visionary 
or speculatist, and fellowship every thing that such men 



286 DEBATE ON THE 

may imagine is taught in the Bible, they wholly misun- 
stood both Mr. Campbell and this reformation. We 
guarantee the right of private judgment, it is true, and 
even propose a compromise in matters of difference, by 
ceasing to speculate about such matters, and to speak of 
them only as the Bible speaks of them ; but surely this is 
not incompatible with the Christian obligation to detect 
and reject heretics. And as to reformers being ashamed 
to cry against religious intolerance, that is all fustian. 

We will now notice a few things in the doctor's last 
speech. And I confess that if mere declamation and 
irrelevant cant were argument, I might have no hesitancy 
in admitting myself vanquished in this discussion. For I 
doubt not that you will agree with me in the conclusion, 
that my friend has few equals in this kind of argumentation. 

I would here remark, that there are three methods of 
meeting an argument. First, and as I conceive the only 
correct one, is to show by logical analysis that its founda- 
tion is untrue, or that its conclusions are not legitimate. 
The second and more convenient one, is to declaim against 
it as obscure and impertinent. And third, when a show 
of replication is desired, when the argument cannot be 
refuted, to state something else as the argument of an 
opponent, and reply to that. And I am sorry that the 
last two or three speeches of my friend furnish us with 
an illustration of this last method. Take a few examples. 
First — he objected to my interpretation of the case of 
the rich man and Lazarus, as denying a future judgment, 
because Dives was in torment. Thus arguing that, if 
there was suffering after death, and before the resurrec- 
tion, there could not be a judgment after the resurrection. 
To this I replied, by showing, by the same logic, the fact 
that their suffering here would also preclude and deny the 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 287 

necessity of a judgment ; which the doctor meets by 
saying, we are told that if there is no punishment after 
death there is no punishment here ! As different, you 
perceive, from what I did say, as day is from night. 
Hence his thrust is made at a man of straw, of his own 
creation. 

Second — With regard to the resurrection, I show that 
as death is a putting off this tabernacle — the body — and 
is, therefore, a separation of spirit and matter, the resur- 
rection is a re-union of the spirit with matter ; and that, 
as the same particles of matter are not necessary to the 
union in life, they are not necessary to a re-union or 
resurrection. This, the doctor says, settles the question 
that, according to my views, there is no resurrection ; and 
he is horrified beyond description. But does he point out 
what there is in this so alarming ? Not at all. But he 
does not deny, what every well informed gentleman and 
lady knows to be true, that there is a constant change of 
matter in every living body, and, consequently, the same 
particles of matter are at different times in different bodies. 
Now, to relieve his friends from the horrors of my position, 
and console them with that sublime and cheering doctrine, 
which has been kept secret for ages and generations, 
except to the favored sons of France, and a few of their 
American sons and converts, that man is all body — will 
he explain to us how the same particles of matter can be 
a part of two or more bodies at the same time ? For in 
view of this philosophical fact on his views of resurrection, 
this impossibility must be accomplished. For his views 
of man and the resurrection, require that the same matter 

— nothing more, and nothing less, and nothing different 

— should be re-organized, and act as before. And he 
asks me to say if this cannot be done ; to which I answer, 



DEBATE ON THE 



that it would be just as impossible for the same particl* 
of matter, at one and the same time, to compose a part of 
two or more different bodies, as for hills to exist without 
hollows ; as impossible as for God to lie, or as for God to 
deny himself A new creation there may be, but there 
can be no resurrection on these principles. And I need 
not, my intelligent friends, point out to you the absurdity 
of rewarding or punishing new creatures for the actions 
of others, that have been before ; which would necessarily 
be the case, if my friend is right. He evidently finds it 
easier to affect to be horrified at my position, than to 
disprove it. 

But what, I would ask ao-ain, is there so monstrous in 
the thought that death is a separation of body or matter, 
and spirit ? And if this is true, and I defy any man to 
show to the contrary, either from the Bible or philosophy, 
what is there so terrible in the position that the resurrec- 
tion is a re-union of spirit and matter ? 

Third — He told us at the beginning of the discussion, 
that that which is immaterial is nothing. This position, I 
show, is atheism ; that it denies the existence of God. 
Instead of trying to prove that my conclusions are not 
just, he asks me to show that two substances can occupy 
the same space at once. This I have done. But he now 
says "I define substance to be something different from 
mattery and then show that they can occupy the same 
space at the same time, therefore he is an atheist." Now, 
Dr. Field's mind is certainly not so obtuse that he cannot 
aee that his statement is but a feeble effort to obscure the 
premises from which my conclusions are drawn ; and 
thus, if possible, destroy the force of what he could not 
otherwise meet. But this effort is too flimsy, although 
connected with the epithet ■' sophism* 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 289 

But he did not, he says, ask me to show that matter 
and substance can occupy the same space at one time, but 
that two substances can ! I have no hope, my friends, of 
getting the doctor to see the difference in the meaning of 
the terms, for there is none so blind as he who will not 
see ; but with the intelligent, who are not pre-determined 
to maintain a cause at all hazards, there is no difficulty 
in seeing the force of what I have said ; to which I will 
add, that all matter is substance, but all substance is not 
matter. The term substance includes all that is meant by 
matter, and more too ; it comprehends spirit as well as 
matter. Hence, when I show that matter and spirit occupy 
the same space at once, I show that two substances occupy 
the same space at the same time. 

Again, every Christian is an example of two immaterial 
substances occupying the same space at once — their own 
spirit and the Holy Spirit. The demoniacs are also exam- 
ples sometimes of more than two. In one there was a 
legion. We are sorry thus to deprive the doctor from his 
only solace in his atheism, viz., that I am in the same 
condition. But it must be so. We would exhort him, 
however, to give up his materialism, whose legitimate 
result is, as we have shown, atheism. No ingenuity can 
save materialism from atheism. For if God is matter, 
as materialism affirms, then he is not spirit, as the Bible 
declares ; consequently, the Bible, the only book that 
reveals him, is false. If he is not matter, then, according 
to Dr. Field, who is here as the champion of materialism, 
he is nothing. I defy the doctor to give any other legiti- 
mate conclusion from his own exposition. The cry of 
sophism will not answer. 

Fourth — To show that the word person or man — one 
of his definitions of spirit — will do in Acts xxiii, 8, he 
25 



290 DEBATE ON THE 

tells us that the text says the Sadducees deny the resur- 
rection i if an gel or spirit, and says this is just what the 
Sadducees did do. I need not tell you, my friends, that 
Dr. Field knows better than this. Does he not know that 
the word of is not there. Is he so hard pressed for 
evidence that he must manufacture scripture that will 
answer his purpose ; so it seems. In reply to his fre- 
quent insinuation, that the doctrine of my proposition is 
substantially the same as that preached in the garden of 
Eden, I would remark, that his addition here is just such 
as was made to the word of God on that unfortunate 
occasion. So that the example of his satanic majesty 
may, perhaps, be found quite as near his own door. 

But he blunders upon the truth in spite of this effort to 
pervert the text. For he says they (the Sadducees) did 
not believe in the separate existence of spirits ; thus 
conceding, at last, that the term spirit here means sepa- 
rate spirit. This is true, and the doctrine is indorsed by 
the apostle Paul ; for he here claims to be a Pharisee, 
and these points of the Pharisees' faith are named by the 
writer evidently to show in what respect the apostle held 
with them. Hence this illustrious man may be added to 
the doctor's list of Platonists. He might, perhaps, find 
as good examples of what he is pleased to call Platonism, 
in the letters written by this holy man to the churches at 
Corinth and Phillippi, and some others, as some of those 
he has given us. Some of his examples, it is true, show 
that their authors should be seeking a place in some 
asylum. And were it not for the apology found in the 
fact that something must be said, we should conclude that 
he who would introduce them on an occasion like this, 
should seek a place there too. But what does he design 
to prove by them, for I confess I can see no point in them, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 291 

unless it is this, that those men believe in the existence 
of the spirit after death, therefore there is no such exist- 
ence ! If the doctor is so near out of argument as this, it 
is surely fortunate for him that the debate is about to close. 

Our attention is again called to the gender of pneuma ; 
and I confess that an apology for so often adverting to a 
matter confessedly of no consequence, would seem neces- 
sary. We should, however, excuse the doctor, I think, 
for so often pressing this matter upon us, from the fact, 
that it is perfectly natural for a father to be thus attached 
to his own offspring, though sometimes, as in the present 
case, they are confessedly worthless. 

He says I affirm that the spirit is sometimes masculine 
and sometimes feminine, and yet alicays in the neuter 
gender. This may be set down as a fifth example of 
stating something else to reply to, rather than reply to 
what I did say. 

I said that jmeuma is always in the neuter gender, in all 
its applications, whether applied to God, angel, the Holy 
Spirit, or the spirits of men. And hence, if the fact that 
the spirits of men are not conscious because the word 
applied to them is neuter gender, the same fact would 
prove that God, the Holy Spirit, and angels, are not 
conscious either, as the same word is applied to them. 
The doctor then shows that words in the masculine gender 
is sometimes applied to these, and calls on me to show 
that any words are applied to the spirit of man — which 
I have done — showing that both masculine and feminine 
nouns are applied to it. But these no more change the 
gender of pneuma than does p?ieuma change the gender 
of these words. 

My success in showing that pseuclice and demon are used 
in the sense of spirit in the texts I have cited on that 



292 DEBATE ON THE 

point, must be left to an enlightened public. There are a 
few things, however, in his remarks on demonology, 
which I must not omit to notice, as this will be my last 
opportunity. 

It seems that my friend is determined not to see the 
point for which I quote profane authors on this subject, 
though I feel satisfied that you have no difficulty on this 
subject. I proved by these, that that word, at the time, 
was used for the spirits of men. Has the doctor shown 
that this is not true ? Not at all. He says he has read 
some things which rather go against that position, but 
has he told us what they are ? Not a word, and evidently 
will not, as by the rules of discussion he has no right to. 
But why did he not, if he could, when he had an oppor- 
tunity ? He has insinuated, it is true, that the quotation 
from Justin Martyr is not genuine, but does he give us 
any evidence ? None. He also says the word might 
have been applied to fallen angels, but has he given us 
any evidence that it was so used ? Not a word. Then, 
I ask, as the Saviour and the apostles have used this 
word without giving any appropriate meaning, how could 
he deny my position ? Not by becoming horrified and 
emphasizing the word monstrous. Will he be able to set 
aside my argument, however horrified he may feel about it ? 

But it is marvelous that Alexander Campbell should 
not have discovered this point, if it is so plain in the 
profane writings of these times. There is no man in the 
nineteenth century, who has more clearly and pointedly 
expressed himself on this subject than Alexander Camp- 
bell, in an address on that subject, delivered in Nashville, 
some years ago, to which I acknowledge my indebtedness 
for some very important suggestions. The idea that these 
spirits are in prison, and have, or had some liberty, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 293 

troubles my friend exceedingly. He cannot comprehend 
it at all. And how would it help his difficulty if the term 
meant the fallen angels ? Are they not imprisoned — 
reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judg- 
ment of the great day. There is no evidence that any 
profane author ever applied the term, in any case, to 
fallen angels. Hence, if the Saviour had applied it to 
them, he would have said so. He could not have been 
understood without such an explanation. His failure to 
give any explanation, shows that he used the term in its 
common import, consequently he has, beyond all cavil, 
indorsed my proposition by his own use of this term. 

When the inspired writers use the word god, they 
explain it, so that no doubt is left as to whether the living 
God or the heathen gods were meant. 

With regard to the time that Samuel had been dead 
when he appeared to Saul at Endor, we only ask that you 
will read attentively the connection, and you will perceive 
that, after the death of Samuel, occurred the affair between 
Nabal, Abigail, and David. After this, David is pursued 
by Saul for some time ; and after Saul leaves off pursuing 
him, he resides in the land of the Philistines for sixteen 
months. All this required time, and all occurred after 
Samuel's death, and before the affair at Endor. So that 
my statement about the time, does not depend wholly on 
the marginal references, as the doctor would have us 
believe. 

I will now give a brief recapitulation of my argument, 
and it must, of necessity, be very brief, as I perceive my 
time is nearly out. 

We have shown, by a number of texts from Job, Solo- 
mon, Peter, &c, that there is a separation of body and 
spirit at death, and that death is, consequently, a separa- 



294 DEBATE ON THJS 

tion — a putting off this tabernacle. And that though 
the term is sometimes applied to the body, which alone 
goes to the dust, while the spirit returns to God, it no 
more affects my position than the fact that the word Christ 
or Lord, is sometimes applied to his body, which is the 
seed of David, affects the divinity of the Son of God. 

We next showed a number of texts, that personality is 
an attribute of the spirit ; and that there is no personality 
without consciousness. On this point, he tried to show 
that dead bodies were personalities, and, therefore, spirits. 
But he could give no evidence, except the fact that the 
personal pronouns are applied to them. By the same 
evidence, we showed that all animals and inanimate things 
would be persons, and, according to the doctor, spirits ; 
and thus showed the utter worthlessness of his objections 
to my position. We next showed that the apostle recog- 
nized the power of existing in or out of the body, and 
then proved by the Saviour that all the dead live to God. 
We then presented numerous examples where conscious 
intelligence is found with those that have died, showing, 
at the same time, that the texts quoted by the doctor, 
declaring that the dead have no knowledge, are restricted 
by their contexts to a knowledge of salvation, or the means 
of salvation, &c, and thus harmonizing them with every 
proposition, and with all the teachings of the Bible. We 
have also shown, that the dead are said to sleep because 
there will be a resurrection, and not because they are 
unconscious ; and concluded our argument, by showing 
that the demons mentioned in the Bible, are the departed 
spirits of men. Whether these all do not most completely 
and triumphantly establish my proposition, we are willing 
to submit to an enlightened public. 

Many of our friends are gone, and we are fast hastening- 



STATE OF THE DEAD. '295 

after them, and the great matter with us, after all, is so 
to live that we may be approved by our blessed Saviour, 
when he comes to destroy hades, to bring back the dead, 
and to be glorified in his saints, and to be adored in all 
them that love him. 

We cannot conclude without expressing our gratitude 
to our heavenly Father, that he has enabled us to pass 
through this discussion with so much kindness and good 
feeling ; and to the moderators, for the dignified manner 
in which they have presided over us; and to you, my 
friends, for the patient and attentive hearing you have 
given us. [Time out.'] . 



DR. FIELD'S SEVENTEENTH REPLY. 

Brethern and Friends : 

Before I sum up the rebutting arguments adduced 
in this discussion, I must notice some points in my friend's 
last speech. 

He complains that some of his arguments have not 
been fairly stated and answered. If I have failed to do 
so, it has not been because I did not desire it. Throughout 
this debate, I have endeavored to make every issue as 
plain as language would allow. Brevity and simplicity 
have been studied, with a view to a clear and intelligible 
presentation of every argument and deduction bearing 
upon the question. It can be no advantage, whatever, 
to my cause to manufacture and demolish "men of straw." 
It will be for you to decide, my friends, whether or not 
this complaint is well grounded. 

He assumes the perpetual and unceasing consciousness 



£96 DEBATE ON THE 

of the spirit from the fact of its creation. For the same 
reason, and upon the principle of analogy, he might infer 
the perpetual sensibility of the body, for that also is 
created. And why may he not extend this inference to 
the brutal creation. If any thing must necessarily con- 
tinue conscious forever because it is created, then all things 
may. But there is another difficulty growing out of this 
postulate. Paul says that the whole creature is made 
subject to death. If, therefore, the spirit is a creature, as 
he asserts, then it is subject to death, as well as the body. 

When God created man, he breathed into his nostrils 
the breath or spirit of life, and then, not before, man 
became a living soul, or person. Here was an organized 
man, to which God applied the motive power, and the 
result was, the machinery of this organic matter was put 
in operation, and produced the phenomena of intellectuality 
and the moral passions. But for sin, it was decreed that 
he should return to dust. When, therefore, he is disor- 
ganized, the breath of life returns to God who gave it, 
and the constituents of the man are in precisely the con- 
dition they were in before he was created. Until it pleases 
the Almighty Creator to re-construct the dust, and again 
infuse into it the principle of life, he remains in his pri- 
meval condition, as it respects sensibility, consciousness, 
and intelligence. Having once lived, and formed his 
character for good or evil, God, for wise and just purposes, 
will re-organize and restore him to life, that he may be 
judged and rewarded according to his deeds. 

In reference to Mr. CampbelPs platform of Christian 
union, and his guarantees of the right of private judg- 
ment, were this the proper time and place to speak fully 
of such matters, I could easily prove that he has changed 
his ground, not only on these subjects, but on all others, 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 297 

except immersion for the remission of sins. The universal 
excuse made by his followers for his course, is that we do 
not understand him. As he has a perfect right to narrow 
his platform, and make his own terms of fellowship, as 
experience and reflection may suggest, it would be much 
more to his and their credit to frankly acknowledge their 
mistakes. If he were too latitudinous in the commence- 
ment of his reformation, and has since found it necessary 
to restrict himself to a more sectional bond of union, 
candor and justice alike demand an acknowledgment of 
the fact, and not to seek to hide his changes in the thread- 
bare apology that he is misunderstood. Now, to show 
that I do not misunderstand him, I will make but two out 
of many extracts taken from his writings, definitive of his 
views of Christian union. He says : " It is not our object 
to make men think alike on a thousand themes. Let them 
think as they please on any matters of human opinion, 
and upon doctrines of religion, provided they hold the head 
Christ t and keep his commandments. 17 

But we are told that Mr. Campbell was willing that men 
might think about doctrines provided they did not talk 
about them. In reply to this, I will quote another extract. 
He says : " We long since learned the lesson, that to draw 
a well-defined boundary between faith and opinion, and 
while we earnestly contend for the faith, to allow perfect 
freedom of opinion, and of the expression of opinion, is 
the true philosophy of church union, and the sovereign 
antidote against all heresy.'' (See his Debate with Rice, 
page 797.) 

Here you see, my friends, that the door was thrown 
wide open for free discussion. The utmost freedom to 
think and speak was proposed and guaranteed, and the 
only sine qua mm to union and fellowship with this new 



298 DEBATE ON THE 

reformation, already in its dotage, was faith in Christ as 
the head of the church, and obedience to his commandments. 

While on this subject I will remark, that it has been 
several years since I read his lecture on demonology and 
witchcraft, delivered before some literary institute in Nash- 
ville, and do not now recollect precisely what his views were 
with respect to the origin of demons, or the supernatural 
power of witches. But I take it for granted that more 
reliance is to be placed in his critical notes appended to 
his New Translation, as presenting the sum of his know- 
ledge on the subject, than in a popular lecture, designed, 
perhaps, as much to elicit investigation as to instruct. 
The one goes to the world in a permanent form, and the 
other as a perishable and fugitive production. 

With regard to death being a separation of body and 
spirit, a putting off this tabernacle, I would remark that 
all this has been sufficiently canvassed in former speeches, 
and need not now be repeated. I would simply add, that 
such expressions as putting off, and putting on, clothing 
and unclothing, import no more than a change of relation 
or character. It is a kind of imagery peculiar to the 
Hebrew writers. " Put on the Lord Jesus Christ," " Put 
off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man," 
" Put on charity," " Be clothed with humility," are exam- 
ples of this mode of speech. W^e have a striking illustra- 
tion of it in Isaiah xlix, 17. It is as follows : " He put 
on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation 
on his head ; and he put on the garments of vengeance 
for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak." 

You see from this, my friends, how unsafe it is to infer 
a doctrine from a metaphorical expression. 

He defies any man to show that the resurrection is not 
a re-union of spirit and matter. If he will say a re-uniou 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 299 

of the spirit or breath of life with the matter of the 
human body, I will not controvert this favorite idea of his. 

But we are informed that the matter of the human 
body has passed through so many changes in the lapse 
of years, that this is impossible. That during a long life, 
the body has been wasted and reproduced so many times, 
that if all the matter which successively entered into its 
composition, were collected together, it would make a 
huge mass. Now, my friends, this is sheer nonsense, the 
result of taking things for granted without proof. The 
framework of the human body, from adult to old age, 
remains the same. The bones, brain, lungs, heart, and, 
indeed, all the vital organs, are permanent and unalterable, 
except by disease, which can do but little more than so 
impede their functions as to destroy life. It is the inter- 
stitial matter alone which is wasted and reproduced. In 
the greatest state of emaciation, the human frame has all 
of its vital organs, bones, muscles, arteries, nerves, carti- 
lages, membranes, and ligaments, that it has in perfect 
health. And when it is considered, that the body is 
composed of solids and fluids, this fact is susceptible of a 
rational explanation. "When, from any cause, nutrition 
ceases, the fluids and interstitial matter are drawn upon 
by the absorbents, in order to sustain life, and when 
exhausted, death ensues. Notwithstanding many of you 
have grown old, and have, perhaps, been often reduced 
by disease, you are still conscious that you have essentially 
the same body you had when young. The shape of the 
body, the contour of the face, and other peculiarities of 
your physical structure, assure you that the philosophy 
of my friend, Mr. Connelly, is utterly fallacious. 

He adopts a maxim of the Cartesian philosophy, that 
when we cease to think we cease to exist. Cogito, ergo 



300 DEBATE ON THE 

sum — "I think, therefore, I am " — was the starting point 
in the researches of Des Cartes, who believed it to be 
necessary to doubt every thing, even his own existence, 
until demonstrated by some process of ratiocination. The 
first thing to be done by this philosopher, in the acqui- 
sition of knowledge, was, to prove his own existence. 
This he did by framing this novel syllogism. Like my 
friend, Mr. Connelly, he thought that it would be impos* 
sible to exist without thinking. Therefore, the moment 
he ceased to think, his identity would be lost. This is 
precisely the ground taken by my friend, in all that he 
has said against the unconsciousness of the sleeping state, 
and the resurrection of the body that dies. He believes 
that the man proper must perpetually think, whether 
asleep, or dead, or alive, in order to maintain his identity, 
and make him accountable for his acts. In the predicate 
of this logic, he commits a petitio principii, or begs the 
question. For, in order to make his conclusion run par- 
allel with the predicate, he should first prove that he 
thinks. If, then, it can be proved that at any time he 
ceases to think, it follows, that he is not, or ceases to exist. 
My friend, Mr. Connelly, like Des Cartes, must maintain 
that the mind of man never suspends its operations. Now, 
I think I have shown that it does every time we sleep 
soundly. There is not a physiologist or philosopher under 
the sun, worthy of the name, who would deny this. One 
of the greatest writers of modern times, who is a strenuous 
advocate for the immortality of the soul, says " that in a 
state of general fatigue, or exhaustion of the physical 
powers, not only the will, but the whole of the internal 
senses concur in the common torpor or inertness that is 
produced, and when we advance to a state of lethargy, or 
dead, senseless sleep, wc are without thought, or an idea of 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 301 

any kind, but still the sleep is natural and healthy." He 
further says " that in a complete paroxysm of apoplexy, 
no man has ever been conscious of a single thought or 
idea. The same thing occurs in suspended animation 
from drowning, hanging, or catalepsy." Again he says 
"sleep is the death or torpitude of the voluntary organs, 
while the involuntary continue their accustomed actions. 
Death is the sleep or torpitude of the whole." Webster 
says in sleep there is a suspension of consciousness and 
of the intellectual powers. (See his definition of the word.) 
These facts attest the fitness of the word sleep, when used 
as a trope, to represent death. 

If the reasoning of Des Cartes, and my friend, Mr. 
Connelly, on this subject were true, it would be necessary 
for spirit Connelly to watch body Connelly every time he 
sleeps, for the purpose of assuring him, when he awakes, 
that he is the same man ! [Laughter.] 

He reiterates several points which have been sufficiently 
discussed, such as the distinction between substance and 
matter, the gender of pneuma, the impossibility of there 
being a God upon my principles, and the possibility of a 
plurality of substances occupying the same place at the 
same time ; all of which I will dismiss with a single 
remark. He says that all matter is substance, and that 
substance includes all that is meant by matter, and more 
too. With this explanation of his, I ask, is it possible for 
a legion of substances, which is matter in some form, to 
occupy the same place at one and the same time ? Com- 
mon sense answers no. 

I have had no desire, my friends, to enter into any 
speculations with regard to the essence of the Deity. No 
man but a fool will say that there is no God ; nevertheless, 
it is impossible for mortal man to find him out to perfection 



302 DEBATE ON THE 

— to comprehend the modus of his being. The ancients 
generally believed him to be corporeal. Many of the 
fathers of the church held the same view. By the word 
spirit, the Greeks and Romans equally understood a subtle 
matter, extremely dilated, but consisting of parts. These 
views were perpetuated in both the Greek and Latin 
churches for several centuries. The materiality of the 
human soul was not renounced by the Church of Rome 
till the time of St. Augustine. The American sage, 
Thomas Jefferson, deist as he was, well remarked, in a 
letter to John Adams, in 1820, that "when once we quit 
the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of 
immaterial existence, is to talk of nothing. To say that 
God, angels, and the human soul, are immaterial, is to 
say that they are nothing. At what age of the church 
the heresy of immaterialism crept in, I do not know ; but 
a heresy it certainly is — Jesus taught nothing of it." 

As he has reduced the time about two thirds, between 
the death of Samuel and the trick practiced on Saul by 
the witch, I need not spend time in noticing this point, 
further than to say, that if the prophet was raised at all, 
it must have been from the place where he was. The 
narrative informs us that he ivas buried in his tomb at 
Ramah. 

The slight inacuracy in a quotation which I made from 
Acts xxiii, where it is said the Sadducees denied the 
resurrection of angel and spirit, amounts to nothing. The 
preposition of, it is true, is not there. But what of that ? 
Nothing is gained or lost on either side by leaving it out. 
The sense of the passage is precisely the same. Syntacti- 
cally, it is understood. 

I will now proceed to sum up my arguments, with the 
preliminary remark, that it is a rule of criticism among 



STATE OF THE DEAD. 



303 



theologians, that scripture is a key to scripture ; and that 
whenever one part of scripture appears to contradict 
another, the analogy of the whole Bible, and unbiased 
reason, must determine which of the contradictions ought 
to give way. Keeping this rule in view, I will submit the 
following summary : — 

1 . I have proved that the spirit of man is not a personal, 
intelligent entity, separate and distinct from the body. No 
such thing is taught in scripture, and can, at most, only 
be inferred from certain ambiguous texts. That the 
utmost that can be proved respecting it, is that it is but a 
part of man, and not the man himself. That all animals 
have spirits, and if a deathless nature is inherent in spirit, 
then brutes are as immortal as man. 

2. That man, in his present living state, is called a 
spirit, and in that meaning and application of the term it 
is a personality. But after death no such attribute is 
ascribed to his spirit. So far from it, personality is still 
affirmed of that which remains, and is visible. And as 
the word spirit is often used in the sense of person, it 
may, without an abuse of the laws of language, be applied 
to him when dead. The same is true of the word soul, 
which I have shown is applied to dead bodies. 

3. That the dead know not any thing, and that all their 
thoughts have perished. 

4. That in hades, where my friend, Mr. Connelly, 
locates the spirits of the dead, there is no knowledge, nor 
device, nor work. That in that state or place, they neither 
praise nor thank the Lord, for the best of all reasons, they 
cannot do it. 

5. That they are asleep, and that, too, in the dust of 
the earth. That natural sleep, when complete, is a state 
of entire unconsciousness. That in such a state, all the 



304 DEBATE ON THE 

voluntary organs, and likewise the intellectual operations, 
are suspended, and, in many respects, it is an appropriate 
figure of death. 

6. That future life depends upon a resurrection from 
the dead, and not on any thing naturally and necessarily 
immortal in the constitution of man. That such a thing 
as a deathless spirit, nor never-dying soul, is not once 
mentioned in the Bible. And if there be no resurrection, 
then all the dead have perished for ever, which could not 
be upon the hypothesis that spirit, in its very nature, is 
intelligent and indestructible. 

7. That in hades, the place of departed spirits, accord- 
ing to my friend, they are dead, from whence they will 
be summoned to judgment. That in the sense in which 
men are dead in the sea, they are dead in hades. If not 
so, there is an end of all rational rules of interpretation. 

8. That we do not obtain the victory over death when 
we die, but when Jesus comes, who is the resurrection 
and the life. Until then, we must continue in the bondage 
of corruption, under the power and dominion of the last 
enemy. 

9. That the texts quoted by my friend, Mr. Connelly, 
in proof of his proposition, can be explained in harmony 
with the foregoing texts. But if correctly construed by 
him, they make the Bible a contradictory book. That 
they are more or less metaphorical, parabolical, or pro- 
phetic ; and that there is nothing beyond the establishment 
of a favorite dogma, that would justify an effort to make 
them conflict with positive and unfigurative declarations 
of scripture. 

10. That the doctrine of an immortal soul, which 
survives the death of the body, is of heathen origin, and 
has descended to us through the Alexandrian school, 



STATE OF Tilfi DEAD. 305 

where it was introduced upon principles of compromise 
with the disciples of Plato. 

11. That if my friend's doctrine he true, it undervalues 
and supercedes the necessity for the coming of Christ, 
the resurrection of the dead, and a day of judgment, and 
in its tendency, otherwise mischievous. That it in fact 
virtually, if not in effect, denies a resurrection altogether, 
and is susceptible of an easy and consistent affiliation with 
the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg. 

12. That the gods of the heathen, in the days of Moses, 
were idols of wood and stone, the representatives of mere 
imaginary beings ; and necromancy was a deception — a 
fraud — for which reasons penal laws were enacted against 
idolatry, and for the suppression of witchcraft in all its 
forms. 

Last of all, my friend, Mr. Connelly, appealed to the 
polytheism and demonology of the heathen nations of 
antiquity, as furnishing conclusive evidence of the truth 
of his proposition. The predicate of the argument from 
this source is, that the gods of the heathen, in the days 
of Moses and Christ, were the ghosts of dead men ; that 
Moses, by enacting laws against the worship of these 
gods, acknowledged their personal existence ; and that the 
Saviour and the apostles, by using the word demon, 
endorsed the demonology of Greece and Rome. I called 
upon him to say, explicitly, whether Baal, Moloch, Ash- 
toreth and Dagon, were real or imaginary beings. But 
he has declined answering the question. If he did not, 
he should have known, that from the time of Abraham to 
that Of Moses, and indeed, long after the Israelites had 
occupied the land of Canaan, the gods of Chaldea, Persia, 
and Egypt, were siderial and elementary. They wor- 
shiped the sun, moon, and stars — called in scripture 
26 



306 DEBATE ON THE 

"the host of heaven " — and also air, water, fire, and the 
earth. To this practice they were probably led by their 
researches into the science of astronomy. Mars, Mercu- 
rius, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, &c, were the names given 
to the planets. In process of time, they gave their ancient 
kings the names of their gods. This was done to raise 
them to honor and veneration with the people. They 
sometimes put the names of several of their planetary 
deities together, and applied them to their kings, intima- 
ting thereby, that they were persons under the extraordi- 
nary care and protection of their gods. Thus the kings 
and great men of Babylon were called Peleser, Belshazzer, 
Belteshazzer, Nebuchadnezzer, Nabonassar, and other 
names of the same kind ; to explain which I would remark, 
that Pil, Pal, or Pel, or Baal, Bal, or Bel, which was 
written Belos in Greek, and sometimes Phel, or Phul, or 
Pal, for they are all the same word, signifies lord or king, 
and was the name of the sun, whom they called the Lord 
or King of heaven. Belta, or Beltes, which signifies lady 
or queen, were the names of the moon, which they called 
the Queen of heaven. Azar was the name of Mars. Gad 
signified a troop or host, and Nabo was the name for the 
moon. This explains the compound names of their kings. 
Pel or Pel- Azar — a man in special favor with the sun 
and Mars. Nabonassar or Nabo- Azar — a favorite of the 
Moon and Mars. Nebuchadnezzar or Nabo-Gad-Azar, 
or one favored by the Moon, the host of heaven, and by 
Mars. Dr. Hyde thinks that Bel was the name of Jupiter, 
Belta of Venus, and Nabo of Mercury. 

That the Chaldeans, Babylonians, Persians, Phoeni- 
cians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, thus deified the 
sun, moon, and stars, and subsequently the elements, we 
have the concurrent testimony of Diodorus Siculus, He- 







«j> * « - * . Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
f) % t • o, ^ ^» Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

\<» A** ♦ */A^ft?/>L ^ ^ ' Treatment Date: August 2005 



k .v** :^^^« ?i PreservationTechnologies 

* aV *$^ » |&7 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

x j, *4^«?P*» /"V* ^* 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 

\* "C^* ' • • • *0 O. Cranberry Township. PA 16066 

IT 0°"*» ^ O^ • «•♦•«, "* (724)779-2111 







w • 



w • 




